Report On Land Disputes and Human Rights PDF

2017
©Uganda Human Rights Commission, 2017

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without acknowledgment of the
SXEOLVKHU¬
Cover Photos:
Main:Part of the Pian Upe game reserve in Nakayot parish, Napak district where there
exist a dispute between the Local Community and UWA.
Top: A mark stone showing the boundary of the Bokora corridor game reserve in
Napak Apeitolim parish, Napak district
Bottom: A mining site in Kosiroi parish, Tapach Sub County in Moroto district. This area
is under dispute between the local Tepeth community and Tororo Cement Company
UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
CONTENTS
Uganda Human Rights Commission offices
Uganda Human Rights Commission Head Office

Plot 22B Lumumba Avenue (Twed Plaza Building)
P.O Box 4929, Kampala
Foreword 3
Tell: 041348007/8
Acknowledgment 5
Fax: 041255261
List of Acronyms 6
About Email.
UHRC Uhrc@uhrc.ug 8
Website:
Functions www.uhrc.ug
of UHRC 8
UHRC powers 8
Regional
Limitations Office
on the UHRC mandate 9
Executive Summary 10
Arua Regional Office
Findings Jinja Regional Office 11
HumanPlot 70Aimplications
rights weather Park Lane Plot 21 Bell Avenue 11
P.O Box 406,
Policy recommendations Arua P.O Box 66, Jinja 12
Tel: 0476420214 Tel: 0434123760
CHAPTER ONE: Background
Email: uhrcarua@uhrc.ug 15
Email: uhrcjunja@uhrc.ug
1.0: Introduction 15
1.1. Statement of the Problem
Central Regional Office Masaka Regional Office17
1.2. Objectives of the Study
Plot 55, Katalima Road, Naguru Plot 14 Edward Avenue 17
1.3. Research Questions
Opposite Uganda Police head quarters P.O Box 701, Masaka17
1.4. Justification
P.O Box 4929, Kampala Tel: 0318514812 17
1.5. Historical Background to
Tel: 0414232190/04144271847 Land Disputes 18
Email: uhrcmasaka@uhrc.ug
1.6. Legal
Email:and Institutional Framework Regarding Land Rights
uhrckampala@uhrc.ug 20
CHAPTER TWO: Contemporary debates on Mbarara Regional
land disputes Office
and
Fort Portal Regional Office Plot 6 McAllister Road,
human rights 23Mbarara
Plot 3/5 Mugurusi Road P.O box 105, Mbarara23
2.0. Introduction
P. O Box 960 Fort Portal Tel: 048521780/1
2.1. Understanding Land Conflicts 23
Tel: 0483423171
2.2. Land Disputes and the Global Land Rush Email: uhrcmbarara@uhrc.ug 25
Fax: 04822571
2.3. Land Rights: Theory and Practice 27
Email: uhrcfortportal@uhrc.ug Moroto Regional Office
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology Plot 2/12 Independence, 31 Avenue
3.0. Gulu Regional Office
Introduction JLOS House 31
3.1. Plot 25 Aswa
Study Design Road P.O Box 105, Moroto 31
3.2. P.O Box
Scope of 728 Gulu
the Research Tel: 0454470130 31
3.3. Tel: 047143171
Baseline Survey 31
Email: uhrcmoroto@uhrc.ug
3.4 Fax: 047832458
Sampling and Procedure 32
3.5. Email: uhrcgulu@uhrc.ug
Methods of Data Collection Soroti Regional Office34
3.7. Ethical Consideration Plot 70 Gweri Road 36
3.8. Hoima Regional Office
Limitations P.O Box 462 Soroti 36
Plot 154 Bunyoro-Kitara road Tel:/fax 0454461793
CHAPTER HoimaFindings on land disputes
P.O Box 339FOUR: and uhrcsoroti@uhrc.ug
Email: their human
Tel: 04654400287 rights implications 37
4.0. Introduction
Email: uhrchoima@uhrc.ug 37
4.1. Demographic Characteristics 37
Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Regions of Uganda: Tracing the Nexus 1
4.3. Forms of Land Disputes 39

4.4. Areas Affected by Land Disputes 45
4.5. Magnitude /Severity of Land Disputes 49
4.6. Causes of Land Disputes 53
4.7. Actors in Land Disputes 65
4.8. Land Cases Registered and Disposed of by Police and the
Judiciary from 2014 to April 2017 67
4.9. Challenges in Addressing Land Disputes 70
4.10. Categories of People Affected by Land Disputes 71
CHAPTER FIVE:Human rights implications of land disputes 73
5.0. Introduction 73
5.1. Violation of the Right to Property 73
5.2. Deprivation of the Right to Life 76
5.3. The Right to Food 77
5.4. Forced Eviction and the Resultant Violation of the Right to
Housing 78
5.5. Poverty and Underdevelopment 80
5.6. The Right to Cultural Identity 80
5.7. Freedom from Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment 81
5.8. Right to Liberty and Security of Person 81
5.11. Implications on Various Children’s Rights 82
5.12. Discrimination against Women 83
5.13. Right to Self-determination 84
5.14. Right to an Effective Remedy 84
CHAPTER SIX: Policy recommendations 85
6.0. Introduction 85
6.1. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development should: 85
6.2. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development should: 86
6.3. The Judiciary should: 86
6.4. The Uganda Police Force should: 86
6.6. The Civil Society Organisations should: 86
6.7. The Uganda Law Reform Commission should: 87
6.8. The District Land Boards should: 87
6.10. The Uganda Wildlife Authority and National Forestry Authority
should: 87
6.11. The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs should: 87
6.12. Uganda Land Commission should: 87
6.13. The Office of the Prime Minister should: 87
6.14. Politicians should: 87
6.15. The Media should: 87
6.16. Cultural Institutions should: 87
6.17. Uganda Police Force should: 88

2 Regions of Uganda: Tracing the Nexus
Foreword
The Uganda Human Rights Commission is a constitutional body established under
Article 51 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Its mandate under
Article 52 of the Constitution requires the Commission “to establish a continuing
programme of research, education and information to enhance respect for human
rights”, In line with this, the Commission embarked on a research on land disputes
in selected regions of Uganda and how they impact on fundamental human rights
and freedoms. The study aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of the underlying
issues behind land disputes and their human rights implications in four regions of
Uganda, namely: Karamoja, Eastern, Northern and Central.
This research comes at a time when land disputes have become a common
occurrence in Uganda, with implications for the enjoyment of fundamental human
rights and freedoms. It is important to note that land is not only one of the most
important resources, but also a means to the realisation of other human rights such
as the right to food, right to life and the right to cultural identity. However, due to its
economic significance, land has in the recent past been a source of conflicts and
insecurity in various countries including Uganda with dire human rights consequences
on the affected communities. Despite the existence of policy, legal and institutional
mechanisms to ensure proper land administration in Uganda, land disputes have
featured prominently in the media. This study therefore uses a human rights lens to
analyse land disputes, drawing insights from international human rights standards
relating to property rights.
It is our wish that the findings of this study offer useful insights in understanding and
addressing land disputes; in effect, mitigating their negative impact on human rights.
We urge the responsible government ministries, departments and agencies particularly
the Ministries of Lands, Housing and Urban Development; Justice and Constitutional
Affairs; as well as Local Governments, in addition to statutory authorities like National
Forestry Authority and Uganda Wildlife Authority to whom policy recommendations
have been made to take appropriate action informed by the findings. This will go a
long way in ensuring that human rights violations related to land disputes in Uganda
are effectively prevented or addressed.
Med. S.K Kaggwa

Chairperson, Uganda Human Rights Commission


Acknowledgment
The development and publication of this report on Land Disputes and Human
Rights in Selected Regions in Uganda: Tracing the nexus, would not have been
possible without the unwavering support of the Uganda Human Rights Commission
partners from government Ministries, Departments and Agencies and; particularly,
the Democratic Governance Facility (DGF) that provided the financial backing which
made the completion of this research report possible.
The work; that involved massive research, collation and analysis of data and the final
drafting of the report, could not have been possible without the resolute and selfless
commitment by the people who, beyond their ordinary official engagements, put in
more of their time to have meritorious output.
I, in that regard, would like to extend my utmost appreciation to the Chairperson and
Members of the Uganda Human Rights Commission for their support and guidance
throughout the entire research process.
The members of staff of the Commission did most of the footwork; travelling to areas
that are outside and beyond their usual operational boundaries; interacting with
members of the community to extract information that would not ordinarily be availed
to unfamiliar persons, and coping with a physically and socially hostile environment to
arrive at the best results. I would, therefore also like to acknowledge, in equal measure
and without exception, all members of staff of the Commission, under the leadership
of Ms Ida Nakiganda, the Director Research, Education and Documentation, for their
tireless efforts that ensured that this report came out. Gratitude goes to Ms. Rose
Mary Kemigisha for editing the report.
I am also grateful for the contribution of the Commission’s stakeholders from the
Judiciary, Uganda Police Force and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions; Local
Government officials; staff from NEMA, NFA, UNRA and UWA; Civil Society
Organisations who have variously supported the work of the Commission, and who,
in one way or the other, supported this project. Support from members of grass root
communities who were interviewed and freely shared their opinions, was innumerable,
and significantly enriched the report.
I also thank stakeholders and members of staff who participated in the validation
meeting to improve and flag off the report.
Patrick Mabiiho Nyakaana

Secretary, Uganda Human Rights Commission

List of Acronyms
ACHPR African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights
ALC Area Land Committee
CAO Chief Administrative Officer
CCCC China Communication Construction Company
CEDAW Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against
Women
CPF Central Processing Facility
CRC Convention on the Rights of Children
CSOs Civil Society Organisations
DLB District Land Boards
DLG District Local Government
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons
IMF International Monetary Fund
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KIDEP Karamoja Integrated Development Programme
LCs Local Councils
LEP Legal Empowerment for the Poor
LSLT Large-Scale Land Transactions
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies
MISR Makerere Institute of Social Research
MNCs Multinational Corporations
MoLHUD Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development
MP Member of Parliament
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
NFA National Forestry Authority
OAU Organisation of African Unity
OVCs Orphans and other Vulnerable Children
PWDs Persons with Disabilities
RSAs Resident State Attorneys
S/C Sub County
SPSS Statistical Packages for Social Sciences
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UHRC Uganda Human Rights Commission
UIA Uganda Investment Authority
ULC Uganda Land Commission
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority

UPDF Uganda Peoples Defence Forces

UPF Uganda Police Force
UPS Uganda Prisons Service
UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

About UHRC
The Uganda Human Rights Commission is an independent constitutional body set
up under Article 51 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda (hereinafter the Constitution)
to promote and protect human rights. It was established in November 1996 under
constitutional provisions which were operationalised by the Uganda Human Rights
Commission Act, 1997.
Vision: A society that respects human rights and fulfils civic obligations.
Mission: To protect and promote fundamental Human Rights and freedoms in Uganda
for sustainable development.
Functions of UHRC
The functions of UHRC are stipulated under Article 52 of Uganda’s Constitution as
follows:
1. To investigate, at its own initiative or on a complaint made by any person or
group of persons against the violation of any human right;
2. To visit jails, prisons and places of detention or related facilities with a
view of assessing and inspecting conditions of the inmates and make
recommendations;
3. To establish a continuing programme of research, education and information
to enhance respect of human rights;
4. To recommend to Parliament effective measures to promote human rights,
including provision of compensation to victims of violations of human rights,
or their families;
5. To create and sustain within society the awareness of the provisions of the
Constitution as the fundamental law of the people of Uganda;
6. To formulate, implement and oversee programmes intended to inculcate in the
citizens of Uganda awareness of their civic responsibilities and an appreciation
of their rights and obligations as free people;
7. To monitor the Government’s compliance with international treaty and
convention obligations on human rights; and
8. To perform such other functions as may be provided by law.
UHRC powers
The UHRC has the powers of a court:
• To issue summons or other orders requiring the attendance of any person
before the Commission and the production of any document or record relevant
to any investigation by the Commission

• To question any person in respect of any subject matter under investigation

before the Commission
• To require any person to disclose any information within his or her knowledge
relevant to any investigation by the Commission; and
• To commit persons for contempt of orders.
If satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, UHRC
may order:
• The release of a detained or restricted person;
• Payment of compensation or
• Any other legal remedy or redress.
UHRC has a Human Rights Tribunal, the decisions of which may be appealed to the
High Court if any party is not satisfied with the outcome.
Limitations on the UHRC mandate

UHRC is barred by the Constitution from investigating any matter pending before
a court or judicial tribunal; a matter involving the relations or dealings between the
Government and that of any foreign state or international organisation; and a matter
relating to the prerogative of mercy.

Executive Summary
Land is an important resource as well as a means to the realisation of other human
rights such as the right to food, the right to life and the right to adequate housing among
others. The economic and environmental significance of land has been recognised
by the National Land Policy in Uganda. However, in the recent past the economic
significance of land has been a source of conflicts and insecurity in various countries
Uganda inclusive. Disputes over land have featured prominently in the news media in
Uganda as well as in some surveys and researches.
In view of this, the Uganda Human Rights Commission which is mandated by Article
52 of the Constitution of Uganda “to establish a continuing programme of research,
education and information to enhance respect for human rights”, conducted a research
on land disputes in Uganda and how they impact on fundamental human rights and
freedoms. The research was done in selected districts in Karamoja, Eastern, Northern
and Central regions of Uganda. It was in the context of the increased general interest
of the public and the central government in the administration of land in Uganda in
general and the escalating cases of land disputes in particular. A judicial Commission
of inquiry into land matters was on-going as well as efforts to have Parliament amend
Article 26 of the Constitution to give government powers to compulsorily take over
land for development projects even when there is an unresolved dispute over the
compensation amount.
The research acknowledges other research already conducted on land disputes.
However, the Commission’s angle was to specially focus on the nature of disputes
involving the state and private individuals or those between companies and private
citizens; aspects that have not been adequately studied. The Commission focused on
disputes that involved communities and the state or its agents considering the state
obligations to respect, protect, and to fulfil human rights. This was in consideration of
the human rights responsibility of the state vis-à-vis private individuals. Nevertheless,
disputes involving private companies/investors and the local communities were also
studied, but to a lesser extent.
The study used the human rights perspective in analysing the problem of land disputes
and how they impact on fundamental human rights and freedoms. The methodology
was a mixed method approach, using both qualitative and quantitative data collection
techniques and the research design was informed by the findings of a prior baseline
survey in March 2017, aimed at getting preliminary data on the nature and magnitude
of land disputes in Uganda, the key actors and their roles.
The research report is structured into six chapters. Chapter One introduces the
research problem, highlighting the research objectives and research questions. It also
addresses the current legal, policy and institutional framework for land administration

in Uganda. Chapter Two is a discussion on the current policy and academic debates
on land disputes, land rights and the recent surge in Large-Scale Land Transactions
(LSLT). Chapter Three presents the methodology adopted for the study while Chapter
Four is on the empirical findings. Chapter Five gives the analysis of the human rights
implications of the land disputes in Uganda while Chapter Six presents the policy
recommendations to the relevant government ministries, departments and agencies.
Findings
The findings reveal that land disputes existed in varying degrees in all the regions where
the research was conducted. It was established during the study that land disputes
took the form of land grabbing, border disputes, encroachment on protected areas,
disputes relating to compensation and family-related disputes such as succession.
On the causes of land disputes, the research revealed that they include: Population
increase; negative peace dividend, cultural practices and government policies;
corruption and fraudulent sale of land; increased infrastructural developments; and
institutional weakness. Other causes were the changing land use pattern, delayed
resettlement of evicted persons, inadequacies/gaps in existing laws, limited knowledge
of the land laws and overlapping land tenure systems.
The Commission further established that private individuals, communities, state
agencies such as Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), National Forestry Authority (NFA)
and Uganda Prisons Service (UPS), were some of the parties to the disputes in the
selected regions. It was also found that the resolution of land disputes in the regions
where the study was conducted involved the Judiciary, Local Council (LC) Courts, area
land committees, Uganda Police Force, Resident District Commissioners (RDCs),
religious leaders, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and the Uganda Human Rights
Commission.
On the challenges in addressing land disputes in the selected regions of Uganda, the
Commission established that lack of faith in the Judiciary and other land administration
institutions was a key factor in addition to poor facilitation of the relevant institutions
and politicisation of land issues, amongst others. The Commission also established
that young people with no social support, widows, pastoralist and elders were the
most affected by land disputes.
Human rights implications

The analysis of the human rights implications of the land disputes in Uganda was
done against international human rights standards as the benchmark. In this respect,
the research established that there was a link between land disputes and violation
of the rights to property, life, food, cultural identity, housing, liberty and security of
person; as well as the link with poverty and underdevelopment. Other rights affected
by land disputes include the right to equality and non- discrimination, especially
against women and the right to access justice.

Policy recommendations
The Commission therefore made the following policy recommendations to the relevant
government ministries, departments and agencies and other stakeholders:
1. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development should:
• Re-open district boundaries to reduce inter-district disputes.
• Ensure that standard maps are used in addressing land disputes.
• Fast-track the process of issuing certificates of customary ownership to
communities where land is communally owned.
• Standardise the compensation rates for all land within the same area.
• Strengthen institutions mandated to handle land administration to effectively
address land matters.
• Expedite and scale out the computerisation of land titles.
• Come out with systematic plans and action on urbanisation.
• Establish a Land Fund to enable the poor acquire land.
2. Government should:
• Ensure that payment of compensation is made prior to taking possession of
land.
• Conduct systemic land surveys and titling for customary land and offer free
registration.
• Strengthen mechanism to fight corruption in institutions handling land disputes.
• Monitor the activities of the CSOs operating on land matters to ensure that
they are impartial when addressing land issues.
• Parliament should stay the current proposal to amend article 26 (2) (b) of the
Constitution until the judicial Commission of inquiry into land matters finalises
its report.
3. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development should:

• Ensure that adequate consultations with communities are done before
exploration and mining licenses are issued to the investors.
• Verify the bona fide land owners prior and ensure that they are compensated
prior to issuing prospecting, exploration and mining licenses.
4. The Judiciary should:

• Implement the strategies in place for backlog reduction in order to reduce the
long periods which cases of land disputes take in the courts of law.
• Strengthen alternative dispute resolution institutions and mechanism.
• Expedite the passing and implementation of the National Legal Aid Policy to
enhance access to justice for victims of land disputes.

5. Civil Society Organisations should continue to compliment the work of

government institutions in advocacy, sensitisation and legal aid services to
address land disputes.
6. The Uganda Law Reform Commission should :
• Ensure the recognition of customary land rights without the need for a certificate
of customary ownership.
• Ensure that the Mining Act, Land Acquisition Act and the Land Act are in
harmony and consistent with the constitutional provisions relating to the right
to property.
• Together with the Judiciary build the capacity of the members of LC Courts.
7. Uganda Police should:

• Exercise professionalism in executing court orders relating to evictions.
• Together with other security agencies avoid taking sides on land matters.
8. The District Land Boards should streamline their operations to make them
accountable to the public when handling land matters.
9. Conservation agencies such as UWA and NFA should enter into collaborative
forest management agreements with local communities.
10. The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs should offer legal aid to
the poor people in matters regarding land.
11. The Uganda Land Commission should ensure that all government institutions
survey all their lands to avoid encroachment by private individuals and
companies.
12. The Office of the Prime Minister should resettle communities that have been
evicted.
13. Politicians should avoid politicising land issues.
14. The media should exercise professionalism and responsible journalism.
15. Cultural leaders should mitigate disputes within their communities.
Strengthening and recognizing the roles of clan leadership structures.


CHAPTER ONE:
Background
1.0: Introduction
Land is not only one of the most important resources, but it is also a means to the
realisation of many human rights such as the right to food, the right to life and the
right to adequate housing, among others. The Uganda National Land Policy, for
instance, recognises the importance of land because of the environmental resources
it has and the capital it generates1. However, due to its economic significance, land
has in the recent past been a source of conflicts and insecurity in various countries.
Whereas this is a global concern, the problem of land disputes is more manifested
in developing countries, where in addition to increasing population density, there is
a global rush for acquisition of land by multinational corporations, with the aid of
governments, for various forms of investments. This situation has been described as
Large-Scale Land Transactions (LSLT) or the global land rush. Others have equated
this to the global land revolution or the global land grab. It is said to be a result of
the world food and fuel crisis, a key motivation for multinational corporations to seek
for land in the Global South. However, questions regarding the legitimacy of these
land deals have of recent dominated academic and policy debates. Similarly, the
increasing cases of land grabs and the resultant disputes have been attributed to the
population explosion that has been witnessed in the last 25 years. Moreover, some
have viewed it in terms of the capitalist primitive “accumulation by dispossession”2.
The situation in Uganda is not any different. Disputes over land have featured
prominently in the news media. Examples of these include disputes among the
Benet, an indigenous group of people struggling to get land for settlement in an over
populated area occupied by the Sabiny in Bukwo, Kween and Kapchorwa districts in
eastern Uganda. In Gulu district 1500 UPDF army officers were evicted from Lugore
Prison Farm by the Gulu prison authorities who accused the UPDF of encroaching
and settling on the prison farm land. In Central Region, in Kalangala District, land
conflicts have arisen between members of the local community and an investor
BIDCO, following the allocation of land for palm oil development, with reports of
people being evicted from their homes in the forest to make way for palm oil.3
1
The Uganda National Land Policy 2013.
2
Derrek Hall (2013) Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession and the global land Grab third world
quarterly.
3
Daily Monitor, Monday, September, 8th, 2014

According to findings of a 2008 household survey by Rugadya...et al in 20 districts4

in Uganda, land disputes ranked the highest among conflicts countrywide. They were
also often associated with other disputes including family and domestic violence,
assaults and murder. In Northern and some districts in Eastern Uganda, the return of
formerly displaced people to their ancestral lands following the cessation of hostilities
between the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebel group and the government of Uganda
presented a new reality of land disputes, a situation with the potential of derailing the
current peace in the region5. A recent report for example indicates that up to 98 per
cent of cases reported before the LC courts in Acholi Sub-region are related to land
disputes (Ochan 2017:18). Land disputes in Uganda have been linked to increased
urbanisation, with resultant high population concentration in urban centres (Wehrmann
2008:5). This situation is more prevalent in the central region. Competing claims to
rights over the usage of land as well as to control of power and authority associated
with land ownership is the driving force behind most land disputes.
Whereas the government of Uganda has put in place various legal, policy and
institutional measures for the administration of land in Uganda, reports of land
disputes still continue to surface. Thus, key questions of concern remain why these
disputes persist despite the availability of legislative and institutional measures to
address them; whether there are gaps in the existing legal frameworks or there are
weaknesses with the implementation of land administration policies and legislation
(Eck (2014:443). Writing in the context of Zimbabwe, Howard-Hassman suggests
that structural and operational designs of the legal institutions meant to address land
disputes contribute to the escalation of land disputes. This is due to the centrality of
land as an economic asset, with its ownership linked to power.
In light of the above, the Uganda Human Rights Commission, in line with its mandate
under Article 52 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, that requires
the Commission “to establish a continuing programme of research, education and
information to enhance respect for human rights”, embarked on a research on land
disputes in Uganda and how they impact on fundamental human rights and freedoms.
The study was intended to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying issues
behind the land disputes and their human rights implications in four regions of Uganda,
namely: Karamoja, Eastern, Northern and Central regions.
The research was preceded by a baseline survey conducted in March 2017, aimed
at mapping out the hotspots where land disputes were more prevalent. The survey
provided preliminary information on the prevalence, nature and magnitude of land
disputes in the selected districts. The data obtained from the baseline survey informed
the design and execution of the research.
4
The most comprehensive survey of land disputes country-wide so far by MOJ in 2008
5
Burke, C. and E. Egaru (2011) ‘Identification of Good Practices in Land Conflict Resolution in Acholi’, Kampala,
Uganda: United Nations Resident Co-coordinator’s Office.

1.1. Statement of the Problem

As highlighted above, it is evident that conflicts over land are increasing and have
dire consequences for the affected communities. This is in spite of the various policy,
legal and institutional mechanisms in place in Uganda such as the National Land
Policy, the Land Act and institutions charged with the proper administration of land.
The central question which guided this research was why land disputes appeared to
be on the increase, despite many initiatives by the government of Uganda and other
stakeholders to address them. Perhaps a deeper understanding of the dynamics at
play in land disputes is required to facilitate targeted interventions (Wehrmann 2008:
iii). In addition, this study considered the link between the conflicts and the legal,
policy and institutional frameworks (Daudelin 2003:1). This is premised on the belief
that land disputes exacerbate human rights violations and hamper development that
would create a conducive environment for the enjoyment of human rights. Whereas
a number of studies have been conducted on land disputes in Uganda, few have
approached the problem from a human rights perspective. This study attempted
to use a human rights lens to address the above questions, drawing insights from
international human rights standards relating to property rights. The instrumental
nature of land, as a means for the realisation of other human rights was taken into
account.
1.2. Objectives of the Study

To assess land disputes in selected regions of Uganda and their overall impact on the
enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms in Uganda.
1.2.1. Specific Objectives

• To determine the nature of land disputes in selected regions of Uganda
• To identify the roles of key actors in land disputes.
• To establish the underlying factors for the increase in land disputes in the
selected regions of Uganda.
• To analyse how land disputes affect the enjoyment of human rights
1.3. Research Questions

• What is the nature of land disputes in the selected regions of Uganda?
• What roles are played by the different actors in land disputes in the selected
regions of Uganda?
• What are the underlying factors for the recurrence of land disputes in Uganda?
• How do land disputes affect the enjoyment of human rights?
1.4. Justification
The timing of this research coincided with a period of increased interest among
the general public and the central government regarding the administration of land

in Uganda in general, and the increasing cases of land disputes in particular. This
was demonstrated by the appointment of a Judicial Commission of inquiry into
land matters by the president of the Republic of Uganda in December 2016; and
the proposed amendment of the land laws by the Minster of Lands, Housing and
Urban Development, which seeks to give government powers to take over land for
development projects in situations where there is a dispute over the compensation
amount6. The proposed amendment has in particular met resistance from both
the ruling party and the opposition7. This, they say will be in contravention of the
constitutional provision that requires prompt and adequate compensation prior to
compulsory acquisition of private property.
Whilst a lot of research has been conducted regarding land disputes, few of those studies
have paid special attention to the nature of disputes involving the state and private
individuals or those between companies and private citizens. The focus on conflicts
between citizens and governments is premised on the human rights responsibility of
the state vis-à-vis private individuals. Unpacking the different manifestations of land
conflicts, including the processes and justifications will go a long way in enhancing the
development of long-term remedies to address it.
Moreover, the impact of land disputes have mostly been considered in economic
terms yet as observed by Deininger and Castaginini, the implications of land disputes
go beyond the economic importance attached to land (Deininger and Castaginini
2004:5). While the total land area of Uganda is constant at 24103 square kilometres,
the population has been increasing. Uganda had a total population of 34.9 million
persons as of the Census Reference Night (27th August 2014)8; but as at 1st January
2016, the population was estimated to be 39,660,151 people which was an increase
of 3.26 per cent (1,252,474 people) compared to the estimated 38,407,677 people
the year before9. With the Ugandan population projected to hit 54.9 million people
by 2025, at the current growth rate of 3.4 per cent, it is expected that more pressure
will be exerted on land.10 In addition, with the recent discovery of oil in the Albertine
Graben and the increased interest among foreign investors in mineral exploration
potential in regions such as Karamoja, the contentions over land are expected to
remain a top issue in public discourse.
1.5. Historical Background to Land Disputes

The history of land disputes in Uganda, just like in most African countries is intricately
linked to colonialism. Like other former colonial states at independence, the land
question and past inequalities in Uganda remain unresolved11. This has been the
case in other East African counties where land disputes are a long standing issue. In
Kenya for instance, the land question was noted as the platform on which the Kenyan
6
Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2017 available at < http://parliamentwatch.ug/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Constitutional-amendment-Bill-2017.pdf>
accessed on November 7th, 2017
7
Observer news paperAugust 21, 2017 Written by OLIVE EYOTARU
8
National Population and Housing Census 2014
9
http://countrymeters.info/en/Uganda (when was this accessed?)
10
Uganda National Land Policy 2013:4).
11
Urmilla Bob 2010, African Journal on Conflict Resolution, Volume 10, Issue 2, p. 49 – 64.

independence was fought and won12 but it also remained a strain that has in the
recent past threatened the cultural and ethnic harmony and often brought the Kenyan
economy to its knees.
In Uganda, land-related disputes are not new. They existed prior to and during
colonialism, as well as in the immediate post-colonial administrations. The only
constant in these disputes is that the State has always been a key player. This has
greatly influenced the socio-economic and political positions of different groups of
people.
From 1986 to date, there have been attempts to streamline land administration through
ensuring constitutional protection of land rights under Article 26 of the Constitution
of Uganda. The land reforms driven by neoliberal policy advice by the multinational
financial institutions were negative towards customary land tenure, viewing it as a
major hindrance to economic development of the poor (Peters 2004:273). This was
in as far as they called for the formalisation of land ownership through acquisition of
title deeds.
However, developments in Uganda, such as the creation of many districts based
on ethnic groupings have created border disputes among the districts. In addition,
the influx of many foreign investors in Uganda has increased the demand for large
pieces of land for industrial and commercial agricultural purposes. These factors have
escalated conflicts in parts of Uganda, some of which have been bloody and often
characterised by massive population displacements and extensive destruction of
property to levels that culminate into international humanitarian crises13.
Some policies such as the gazetting of large chunks of land for conservation purposes
have also been noted as a source of conflict. At the dawn of independence in 1962
for instance, up to 94.6 per cent of the total land area in Karamoja was reserved for
conservation purposes. This was reversed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority in 1998 to
53.8 per cent although a lot still needs to be done to address this matter. 14
Overall, it is estimated that land disputes are so widespread in Uganda that they
affect 33 per cent15 to 50 per cent16 of landholders. In recent times land disputes
have largely been between governments or big industries and traditional societies.
This usually results in forced evictions, where large populations are forcefully moved
and their properties destroyed to make way for development projects. Quite often
these actions dispense with consultation and the governments carrying them out fail
or refuse to compensate those affected. In Uganda, estimates suggest that between
4 and 8 per cent of the land is under foreign land deals, specifically of investors17.
These efforts by private sector actors to acquire land have increased competition for
land and sparked disputes with local communities. These have serious implications
on fundamental rights and freedoms, a situation this study intends to focus on.
12
Nyadimo 2005
13
https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2008/verona_am_2008_comm7/papers/13_sept/kalande_paper.pdf> accessed on June 15th, 2017
14
Uganda National Land Policy, 2013, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
15
Rugadya, Escalating Land Conflicts in Uganda: A Review of Evidence from Recent Studies and Surveys, June 2009.
16
Deininger and Castagnini, Incidence and Impact of Land Conflict in Uganda, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3248, 2004.
17
Grain, 2011

1.6. Legal and Institutional Framework Regarding Land Rights
1.6.1. International Framework

Uganda is a State party to most international treaties and is obliged to protect
and promote the enjoyment of rights, including the right to property. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)18 has a whole article devoted to property rights
and provides for the right of everyone to own property alone as well as in association
with others. However, neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR)19 nor the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR)20 have clear cut provisions on land or land rights. This notwithstanding,
other related provisions, with a bearing on the right to property can always be inferred.
Such provisions which relate to the principle of non-discrimination underpin rights
relating to land; and the right to an adequate standard of living which includes the right
to food, clothing, and housing.
Similarly, there are explicit rights to land that have been developed in two key areas
of International Human Rights Law: The rights of women under the Convention on
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Article 14 (2) (g)
and (h) of the CEDAW for example protects women from all forms of discrimination
and also protects their rights to an adequate standard of living. Article 14 of CEDAW
obliges states parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on the basis of equality of men and
women that they participate in and benefit from rural development and, in particular
. . . ensure to such women the right to have access to agricultural credit and loans,
marketing facilities, appropriate technology and equal treatment in land and agrarian
reform as well as in land resettlement schemes.
In addition to the international human rights instruments mentioned above, there are
also widely accepted soft law instruments, such as reports from Special Rapporteurs,
guiding principles, declarations and standard rules adopted by international
organisations. These include the Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance
of tenure of land, forest and fisheries in the context of national security; the Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights; and General Comments of the Human
Rights Committees of the United Nations and The United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The UNDRIP illustrates a number of rights
guaranteed to indigenous peoples, including the right not to be forcibly removed from
their land or territories21. It also has provisions relating to the right to cultural practices
of the indigenous people. It states:
18
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
19
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 December 1966,
20
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 December 1966
21
Article 10 UNDRIP. See also Articles 32 and 20(2) which guarantees redress to indigenous people deprived of their means of subsistence and
development and art 26 which guarantees indigenous people the right to land, territories and natural resources which indigenous peoples traditionally
own. Article 27 obligates states to establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, processes giving due recognition to the laws,
traditions, customs and land tenure systems of indigenous people.

“Measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples
concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have
traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities”.
The UNDRIP further affirms the right of indigenous peoples to the full enjoyment of
the rights guaranteed in the various UN human rights instruments.
At the regional level, Uganda is also a state party to a number of regional instruments
that relate to property rights. Key among these is the African Charter of Human and
Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), particularly under Article 14, which provides that 22:
“The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the
interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance
with the provisions of appropriate laws”
The ACHPR further sets procedures for seeking remedy in case of infringement on this
right. Article 21(2) of the ACHPR, provides that “in case of spoliation the dispossessed
people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an
adequate compensation.”23
1.6.2. National Legal Framework.

At the national level, the Constitution of Uganda vests land ownership in the citizens
of Uganda.24 Article 237 specifically provides that ownership of land is vested in the
citizens of Uganda to own it under freehold, mailo, leasehold and customary tenure
systems. Article 26, protects the right to own property alone or in association with
others. The same article sets conditions for compulsory acquisition of land25. Both
the Constitution and the Land Act, 1998, permit the central or local government to
hold environmentally vital resources in trust for the people as provided for under
Article 237 (2) (b). These resources include natural lakes, rivers, wetlands, forest
reserves, national parks, land reserved for ecological or touristic purposes among
others. Section 42 of the Land Act empowers the government or local government
to acquire land in accordance with Article 26 and 237 (2) of the Constitution. Section
44 (4) provides that “the government or a local government shall not lease out or
otherwise alienate any natural resource, though section 44(5) allows government or
Local government to grant concessions or licenses or permits in respect of a natural
resource…” The Land Acquisition Act, 1965 provides for compulsory land acquisition
for public purposes with compensation.
Other legislations relevant to land administration include the Mining Act 2003, the
National Forestry and Tree planting Act 2003, the Wildlife Act 1996, the National
Environment Management 1995, Expropriates Properties Act 1983, and the Petroleum
(Exploration and Production Act) 2013.
22
African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (also called the ‘Banjul Charter’), adopted 27 June 1981 in Nairobi, Kenya, OAU
23
Article 21 (2) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
24
Article 237 specifically provides that ownership of land in the citizens of Uganda to own it under freehold, mailo, leasehold and customary tenure
systems.
25
A bill to amend this constitutional provision was tabled in parliament in June 2017.

1.6.3. Policy and Institutional Framework

The National Land Policy, 2013 gives the overall policy direction regarding land
administration in Uganda. The Policy gives directives on the management and
administration of land in the country with the goal of ensuring an efficient, equitable
and optimal utilisation and management of Uganda’s land resources for poverty
reduction, wealth creation and overall economic development.
To safeguard the property rights of individuals, the government has established
an institutional framework for the proper administration of land in Uganda. The
institutions include among others, the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development (MoLHUD), charged with the responsibility of providing policy direction,
national standards and coordination of all matters concerning lands, housing and
urban development in Uganda; the Judiciary whose mandate involves adjudicating all
cases, including those relating to disputes over land; the Uganda Land Commission
(ULC) which is the constitutional body mandated to manage all government land;
and the District Land Boards as well as the Area Land Committees. Civil Society
Organisations and civic leaders also play a role within the institutional framework.

CHAPTER TWO :
Contemporary debates on land
disputes and human rights
2.0. Introduction
This chapter discusses the current theoretical and conceptual debates surrounding
land disputes. Drawing on literature from previous studies, the conceptualisation of
land disputes commences, considering the different dimensions. The discussion of
LSLT as one of the key drivers of land disputes follows. The different contestations
regarding the status of property rights in general and land rights in particular, including
their implications on human rights are also discussed.
2.1. Understanding Land Conflicts

There is a thin line between disputes and conflicts especially when it comes to their
duration. Whereas disputes are short-term in nature and the parties involved can
easily come to an agreement, conflicts on the other hand tend to be longer in duration
and the possibility of the two conflicting parties coming to an amicable settle is always
slim. According to Miller and Sarat (1981), the starting point of all disputes is the
grievance phase, followed by a claim26. The claim may be settled through litigation or
other alternative dispute resolution mechanism or it could escalate into violent conflict.
A significant number of conflicts in most sub-Saharan African countries have been a
result of disputes over land. These disputes are also associated with competing claims
to rights over the usage of land as well as to control of power and authority associated
with land ownership. The competing claims are due to land scarcity attributed to the
finite supply of land amidst growing population, barriers to accessing viable land due
to high prices and legal barriers amongst others27. However, although scarcity is most
often cited as the leading cause of land disputes, some studies have demonstrated
that the issue has more to do with barriers to access. This is the perspective advanced
by environmental security school of thought.
The political ecology perspective on the other hand agrees with the environmental
security perspective but goes further to consider how scarcity comes about by analysing
the role of globalisation and liberal economic ideologies. The main argument is that
land scarcity is socially constructed and is a function of social, political and economic
26 Miller and Sarat 1981:528

27 Lombard and Rakodi (2016) ‘Urban land conflicts in the global south: Towards an analytical framework’ Urban studies journal, volume 53 (PP.2686).

factors28. Meanwhile the legal anthropological explanation considers land disputes

from legal and institutional frameworks and how they perpetuate land conflicts.29
The overriding factor in all these is tenure insecurity, a situation where the rights
accruing to the land owner to “use, exchange, transfer, bequeath and inherit land or
property”30 is not guaranteed. The failure of the conventional interventions such as
titling, which has instead escalated is also one of the contributing factors (Deininger
and Castagnini 2004:1). This arises from the inability of the existing land tenure
system to respond to new economic challenges leading to conflicts (Deininger and
Castagnini 2004:1); a situation further compounded by the unclear and sometimes
conflicting roles of the formal and informal institutions, population pressure and the
absence of effective institutions for addressing land disputes31.
A 2009 study by the World Bank in Northern Uganda, for example, revealed that
at least 85 per cent of the study population had experienced threats to their tenure
security and felt that those threats were bound to cause insecurity and conflicts (World
Bank 2009:i). The study established a link between tenure security and conflicts. Most
conflicts in northern Uganda involve land abandoned during displacement (World Bank
2009). The study also revealed that the locals had little faith in the state institutions;
those instituting land reforms and those charged with addressing land disputes (World
Bank 2009: ii). It was noted that there were misgivings on tenure reform, especially
proposals aimed at replacing customary tenure with freehold or leasehold titles which
was seen as a ploy to dispose the rural poor of their land. Inadequate capacity of both
formal and informal land dispute resolution institutions was given as one of the reasons
for the failure of these tenure reform initiatives (World Bank 2009). Furthermore, the
nature of formal dispute resolution mechanisms, viewed as too adversarial, escalated
most disputes (Miller & Sarat 1981:528).
In terms of their nature, land disputes are manifested in various ways (Wehrmann
2008:2). Some such disputes are associated with large-scale land transactions (De
Schutter 2011: 249) while others involve single parties such as between an individual
and a neighbour; as well as those involving private citizens and the state or its agents.
Meanwhile, another often neglected dimension to land conflicts in Uganda is ethnicity
(Green 2006:372). It is important to note that these conflicts are not peculiar to
Uganda, but have been a common trend elsewhere in Africa and in some cases, have
escalated to fully fledged civil strife (Deininger and Castogninia 2004:3).
The causes and manifestations notwithstanding, it is important to note that the effects
of conflicts over land go beyond the economic aspects as they may lead to the
violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Land conflicts have been linked
to social exclusion (Peters 2004:270). A key question regarding land formalisation
is who actually benefits and who is excluded (Peters 2004:270). Most disputes are
28
Lombard and Rakodi (2016) “Urban land conflicts in the global south: Towards an analytical framework: Urban studies journal, volume 53 (pp2686).
29
Ibid
30
Lombard and Rakodi (2016) “Urban land conflicts in the global south: Towards an analytical framework: Urban studies journal, volume 53, pg 2686
31
Klaus Deininger and Raffaella Castagnini (2004) “Incident and impact of land conflicts in Uganda, world bank policy research working paper 3248,
2004.

often considered in isolation and efforts to address them begin with disputes as the
starting point, yet consideration of its origin and major drivers would go a long way
in addressing them (Miller & Sarat 1981:527). Conflicts can be transformed through
focusing on the culture, structures and the key actors behind them (Galtung 2000:3).
2.2. Land Disputes and the Global Land Rush

One of the key drivers of land disputes and the resultant conflicts, as highlighted in
the previous section is the phenomenon of LSLT, also referred to as land grabbing or
large-scale land acquisitions (Makki and Geisler 2011:1). Worldwide, it is estimated
that large-scale land acquisition increased 10 times since the 2007 food and oil crisis
The global food crisis is said to have created the need to ensure food security (Wily
2011:735). While LSLT are a common occurrence in most parts of the world, sub-
Saharan Africa has witnessed more land grabs compared to the rest of the world
(Wily 2011:737).
This study uses the definition of LSTL by Golay and Biglio which is “the widespread,
rapid increase of commercial land transactions that involve the acquisition or long-term
lease of large areas of land by investors, particularly when these are disproportionate
to the average size of other land holdings in the area under scrutiny” (2013:1630).
Specifically, the term land grabs is often used when such transactions lead to human
rights violations, discriminate against vulnerable groups, and are done with less
transparency and without informed consent of the bona fide land owners.32
A common feature in land transactions is the direct and sometimes indirect role of
the state. It is argued that “… the issue is more fundamentally between people and
the state, albeit made opaque by steadily emergent aligned rural class formation
in which majority rural poor are characteristically the main losers…” (Wily 2011:
572). Whereas the state is mandated to respect and protect the property rights of all
people, this is not always the case when it comes to land matters. As noted by De
Gaay, “while there is a general agreement that the state ought to have a crucial role
in the protection of basic dignity of each and every human being in its territory, it is
precisely that same institution which has the highest record of gross human rights
violations” (De Gaay 2011:2). Moreover, in many developing countries, states, in their
effort to attract foreign investments tend to favour foreign companies at the expense
of the local land owners (Ratner 2001:462). The land deals exploit the weak security
of tenure, especially among the poor and illiterate, who end up being dispossessed
of their land (Wolford et al 2013:190). This is more so in this era of globalisation,
where some multinational corporations wield more power than some states. (Ratner
2001:460). This kind of alliance between the Multinational Corporations (MNCs)and
states especially in developing countries makes them culpable of rights violations
(Kobrin 2009: 351).
32
Centre for basic research working paper No. 109/2015 “ the legal and policy framework and emerging trends of large scale land acquisitions in
Uganda: Implications for women’s land rights ‘

One theory advanced to explain the increasing cases of the global land rush is
the adoption of neoliberal policies of international financial institutions such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (Joireman 2007:463). It is
viewed as a response to the world food and fuel crisis. Moreover, it has also been
associated with Marx’s concept of ‘primitive accumulation’.33 Other schools of thought
have attributed the increasing cases of land grabbing to the population explosion that
has been witnessed in the last 25 years34. Moreover, some have viewed it in term of
the capitalist primitive accumulation by dispossession.35 Irrespective of the drivers of
the global land rush, it is estimated that in 2009 alone, up to 56 million hectares were
in demand by foreign investors and 70 per cent of these were in sub-Saharan Africa.36
A marble mining site in Kosiroi parish, Tapach Sub County in Mooto district where the residents claimed
they were not consulted before allocating the land to Tororo Cement Company.
Sections of policy makers have justified these land deals arguing that they involve
land that is not currently in use (Baglioni and Gibbon 2013: 1561). This is amidst
claims that large swathes of arable land, essentially in the global south are lying idle
and could be put to use to curb the world food crisis. Another justification for LSLT is
the need for land for large infrastructural projects such as roads, oil wells and power
dams. It is thus seen as a way of opening up rural lands to development
(Baglioni and Gibbons 2013:1558). Accordingly it enhances production of world food
supplies by opening up underutilised land for production (McMichael 2014:37).
Although these arguments appear valid on the surface, in real practice, it works to
the detriment of some sections of the community, especially those who are poor and
illiterate. This is more so where land is under customary systems of ownership and
is communally used (Borras et al 2015:601). In addition, critics have also argued that
LSLT affects the general subsistence of the poor and minority groups (Cotula and
33
Primitive accumulation is the process by which precapitalist modes of production, such as feudalism and chattel slavery, are transformed into the
capitalist mode of production
34
Martinielo (2013) ‘Accumulation by dispossession, Agrarian change and Resistance e in northern Uganda. MISR working paper No. 12 OF 2013.
35
Martinielo (2013) ‘Accumulation by dispossession, Agrarian change and Resistance e in northern Uganda. MISR working paper No. 12 OF 2013.
36
Ibid

Leonard 2010:1). In particular they note that such deals only benefit a few elites at the
expense of the majority poor (De Schutter, in McMichael 2014: 37). This is because
majority of the land transactions alienate the poor from land and mainstream economy
instead of improving their livelihoods since the focus is on large-scale production for
export (De Schutter 2010: 249, Wisborg 2013:1203). Further to, assumptions that
large swathes of land still exist in Sub Saharan African countries have been proved
wrong, considering the reality that most people actually own small and fragmented
pieces of land (Peters 2004: 269).
Whereas the land disputes in Uganda may not easily fit within the meaning of LSLT
as revealed during the desk review for this study, the small scale but multiple cases
of land disputes and the resultant evictions could have far reaching consequences
on fundamental human rights and freedoms. Moreover, these transactions take
place within a still developing land governance structure characterized by the
imposition of formal systems of land administration in communities where customary
systems abound. Taking into consideration these different perspectives, it is easily
agreeable that such land deals put the peasants and other marginalised sections
of the community in a precarious situation. However, the extent to which such deals
escalate land disputes and the resultant human rights violations in a county such as
Uganda is not yet clear. Perhaps a consideration of this problem from a human rights
perspective, as suggested by Wisborg and others, could reveal more in terms of its
human rights implications (Wisborg 2013:1201).
2.3. Land Rights: Theory and Practice

The right to land has traditionally been framed in terms of individual private property
rights37. Debates on land rights have thus centred on its status both as a legal right
and a human right. One perspective has been in favour of protecting the legal right
to land. A central feature of this perspective is that securing the legal right to land is
only possible through formalisation of land tenure systems by issuing of titles (LEP
2008:69). The key requirements for ensuring such a right is said to be making clear the
system within which such rights are recognised, putting in place governance structures,
efficient market policy environment (LEP 2008:66). Accordingly, a legal right to land
is seen as a sure way of protecting the security of tenure of the rural poor, as well as
empowering them economically (Deininger et al 2008:593). By guaranteeing security
of tenure, it’s argued that the rural poor can have access to credit facilities since they
can use their land titles as collateral (Goldstein 2008:3). This line of thinking has
informed most land reform programmes, especially those supported by international
financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, who view land titling as the
most effective way of ensuring tenure security38. Inherent in this assumption is that an
individual can get exclusive rights to a given piece of land, with possibilities to transfer
such ownership as was the case in the Western world39.
37
Howard-Hassmann, R.E. (2013) ‘Reconsidering the Right to Own Property’, Journal of Human Rights 12(2): 180-197.
38
Howard-Hassmann, R.E. (2013) ‘Reconsidering the Right to Own Property’, Journal of Human Rights 12(2): 180-197.
39
Cousins, B. (2009) ‘Capitalism Obscured: The Limits of Law and Rights-Based Approaches to Poverty Reduction and Development’, the Journal of
Peasant Studies 36(4): 893-908.

However, these assumptions relating to individual property rights have been challenged.
First, it is argued that it does not take into consideration the plurality in land tenure
systems, especially in some developing countries like Uganda, where different forms
of land tenure exists. It specifically ignores customary land ownership, which was the
predominant mode of land ownership prior to colonialism, despite it being viewed as
an obstacle to economic development40. Unlike individual property right, rights claims
under communal ownership are not clearly defined and sometimes overlap since
there are no clear demarcations of land between communities and individuals41. This
is more so in parts of Acholi, Lango, Teso and Karamoja regions where systems of
communal land ownership abound. Moreover, for pastoral communities like Karamoja,
land rights have been framed in terms of access, control and the management of the
resources in the land (Houdet et al 2011:1). Thus, whereas relative success has been
attained in formalisation of land tenure by mostly issuing individual titles, previous
studies have shown that most interventions done within this thinking, such as land
titling have failed (Peters 2004:273). In addition, customary land tenure is also still
regarded highly among most communities in Uganda, and it is also recognised under
the law (World Bank 2009: ii). As noted by Ocan, the infusion of formal legal systems
within an already thriving customary land management system became a recipe for
conflicts (Ochan 2017:18). Consequently, conflicts pitting adherents to the customary
land management systems and the advocates for formalization of customary titles
emerged. Furthermore, the non-responsiveness of the present land administration
system to the changing dynamics, including clarification of the role of formal and
informal institutions has escalated land conflicts42. Taking this line of argument, land
disputes can thus be linked to the introduction of private property rights43.
Furthermore, the assertions that individualisation of land ownership through issuing
titles granting individuals exclusive rights over ownership and usage of land protects
the poor people from land grabbing is not entirely true. This is because majority of
the poor are not well-versed with the processes of land registration, which in most
countries like Uganda, are too bureaucratic and require money. These reforms
therefore end up benefiting the elites, who take advantage of their knowledge of
the laws and procedure to dispossess the poor of their land44. In view of this, some
commentators have suggested that instead of focusing on entrenching the legal right
to land, which might only benefit a few elites, it’s is important to consider land disputes
from a human rights perspective. This, it’s argued, would ensure that the rights of the
poor and marginalised members of the community are taken into account when land
policies are designed and implemented.45
The second perspective regarding the right to land goes beyond the legal right to land
40
Ochan R. Ronald 2017. “Institutional Hybridity: An Analysis of Land Tenure Systems and Land Wrangles in Acholi-land” Journal of African Democracy
and Development Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2017, 17-32, www.kas.de/Uganda/en/ accessed on January 10th, 2017
41
Houdet, J., H. Muloopa, C. Ochieng, S. Kutegeka and B. Nakangu (2014) ‘Cost Benefit Analysis of the Mining Sector in Karamoja, Uganda’, Kampala,
Uganda: IUCN Uganda Country Office. Ix 82p.
42
Klaus Deininger and Raffaella Castagnini (2004), “Incidence and impact of land conflict in Uganda” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3248,
March 2004
43
Wehrmann, B. (2008) Land Conflicts: A Practical Guide to Dealing with Land Disputes. GTZ Frankfurt.
44
Howard- Hassman 2013:186
45
Ibid.

to the human right to land. Although there is no explicit provision on the human right
to land under both domestic and international human rights regimes, proponents of
this argument have contended that the right to land can be deduced from the right
to property.46 Taking this further, it has been argued that two sets of human rights
are embedded in land, namely; the intrinsic and instrumental/strategic rights to land.
Strategic/instrumental human rights are those rights considered necessary for the
realisation of other rights while intrinsic rights are those not linked to enjoyment of
other rights.47 Strategically, the right to land is linked to the enjoyment of other human
rights such as the right to life, health, food, among others, while intrinsically, land
is considered a human right in itself, as it is embedded in the right to property (De
Schutter 2010:304).
The intrinsic value of land as a human right is backed by provisions of the international
and regional human rights instruments and national human rights laws as discussed
in chapter one of this report. However, some critics have argued that the existing
legal provisions both under international and national legislation are not sufficient to
support a standalone right to land or property. For example, it’s noted that whereas
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) provides for the right to property,
the two subsequent international conventions, namely the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are silent on the same. It has been suggested that
this omission arose out of the negative sentiments that linked the right to property
to the property rights of the rich and not the poor (Howard-Hassman 2013:182).
Nevertheless, this omission has motivated some writers to suggest the enactment of
a separate international human rights convention for the protection of property rights,
including land (2013:181).
In regard to the strategic or instrumental nature of land/property rights, the key argument
is on the importance of land in the realisation of other human rights (Howard-Hassman
2013:189). The human right to property, in this case, land is seen as instrumental to
the enjoyment of a variety of other human rights such as the right to food, the right to
life, shelter and health, amongst others. This important linkage between land rights
and other human rights has promoted some commentators to equate the deprivation
of land rights to crimes against humanity, especially in situations where it leads to
starvation and death (Howard-Hassman 2013:192).
These theoretical distinctions notwithstanding, it is important to note that clearly
defined property rights will not only help to protect the vulnerable members of the
community from land grabbers but will also go a long way in averting conflicts that
might arise out of disputes over land ownership. It is also clear that using a human
rights lens in addressing land issues offers more benefits, as compared to only
considering the legal rights attached to it. Suffice it to note that the adoption of a
human rights approach to land administration generally is not panacea to all land
disputes. Context-specific concerns such as the complexities arising from the plurality
46
De Schutter 2010:306.
47
As in 45

of legal norms and systems that define rights; coupled with limited access to legal
institutions and mechanisms for redress by the poor, may inhibit the success of such
an approach (Cornwall and Musembi 2004:1418). Similarly, the assumption that rights
can only be claimed within a legal system, ignoring the political nature of rights, that
goes beyond legal structures and norms may work against the human rights approach
to land disputes (Cornwall and Musembi 2004:1418).
The above notwithstanding, reference to international human rights norms as the
benchmark in all developments, including land management gives an added impetus
to the human rights based approach (Uvin 2007:598). This is important in as far as
it provides a framework for holding state and non-state actors accountable (Cornwall
and Musembi 2004:1418). This is in addition to the procedural requirements of
participation, equality and non-discrimination as well as consideration of the vulnerable
people (Golay and Biglino 2013:1636).
Having considered the different perspectives regarding property rights and current
discussions regarding the causes of conflicts relating to land, this research takes
the view that adopting a human rights approach offers a new window of opportunity
to address the different forms of land disputes. In the next chapter, we highlight the
methodological approach adopted for this research.

CHAPTER THREE:
Methodology
3.0. Introduction
The chapter presents the methodology used for study. It introduces the study design,
discusses the scope, sampling, methods of data collection and analysis as well as the
ethical considerations.
3.1. Study Design

The study used the human rights perspective in analysing the problem of land disputes
and how they impact on fundamental human rights and freedoms. Both the intrinsic
and instrumental nature of land was taken into account, as a right in itself and as a
means to the realisation of other rights such as food, housing and ultimately, life.
Consequently, a mixed method approach, using both qualitative and quantitative
data collection techniques was applied. The research was preceded by a baseline
survey conducted in March 2017 aimed at getting preliminary data on the nature and
magnitude of land disputes in Uganda, including mapping of key actors and their roles.
Overall, combining the two approaches provided an opportunity for the participation
of all people in different categories and for proper integration of information.
The research design provided a deeper insight of the various dimensions of land
disputes in relation to the nature, magnitude and the role of various actors. It helped
to generate clear, real, simple and applicable data from the field with the help of
interviews and questionnaires for generalisation of the findings.
3.2. Scope of the Research

Since issues of land disputes are broad, the study focused mainly on disputes that
involved communities and the state or its agents. This was considered in view of the
state obligation to respect, protect, and to fulfil human rights. Attention was also given
to those disputes involving private companies/investors and the local communities.
3.3. Baseline Survey

A prior baseline survey on land disputes and their human rights implications was
conducted by the Commission in order to capture the first two objectives of the
research and was used to inform the design of the main research. It was aimed at
getting preliminary data on the nature and magnitude of land disputes in Uganda. It

was conducted in 12 districts in five regions of Karamoja, Eastern, Northern, Central

and Western Uganda as illustrated in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Regions where the baseline survey was conducted
S/N REGION DISTRICTS

Moroto
01 Karamoja Napak
Nakapiripirit
Bududa
02 Eastern Kween
Katakwi
03 Northern Amuru
Masindi
04 Western
Buliisa
Kayunga
05 Central Mubende
Mpigi
The Commission used structured questionnaires to gather information from both

key informants such as judicial officials, police officers, members of the Area Land
Committees, CSOs and the members of the community. The Commission interviewed
182 respondents during the baseline survey (the response rate was nearly 100%)48,
exceeding the sample size. Information gathered from the baseline survey revealed
that the following districts had significant cases of land disputes: Mubende, Kayunga,
Amuru, Lira, Masindi, Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit, Katakwi, Bududa, Kween Buliisa,
Mpigi, Budaka, Manafwa, Kaabong, Mbale, Kampala and Nakaseke. The findings
informed the research teams’ choice of scope for the detailed study.
3.4 Sampling and Procedure

The research used a sample size of 465 respondents, distributed equally in the five
regions identified for the study. The equal distribution of respondents in the five regions
was done in order to get equal chances of respondents, thus drawing conclusions
from relatively the same number across all the regions as shown in the Table 2 below:-
Table 2: Sample Size and Distribution
48
Statistics from the UHRC baseline survey report on land disputes, March 2017

Regions Key Informant FGDs Number of Respondent

Central 18 80 98
Northern 5 80 85
Western 12 80 92
Eastern 15 80 95
Karamoja 15 80 95
Total 65 400 465
The respondents were identified through the random sampling method, while the key
informants were identified through contacts established through the Commission’s
regional offices. Primary information was obtained from key institutions involved in
addressing land disputes as well as the community, where both males and females
from all categories were involved. The members of the community were selected
through random sampling where 400 respondents were targeted.
The Key informants like district officials, judiciary, police and CSO representatives were
identified through purposive sampling. This implies that a total of 65 key informants
were targeted whereby at least five were interviewed from each of the 12 districts that
were covered by the research study and at the central level (Kampala).
In addition to the key informants interviewed from the selected districts, two others
were identified at the national level and interviewed. These were: The Kayunga District
Member of Parliament, Hon. Ida Nantaba and the Member of Parliament Kilak South,
in Amuru District Hon. Gilbert Olanya.
Interview with Kilak South Member of Parliament, Hon. Gilbert Olanya (left)

At the district level, Police, Judiciary, Local Council (I, III, V), Chief administrative
Officer (CAO), Lands Officer, Area Land Committee, Production department, Clan/
religious leaders, Zonal Lands Officer, Resident State Attorneys (RSAs), CSOs and
government agencies including UPS, UPDF, Uganda Investment Authority (UIA),
UWA, NFA, Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA), and National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA) were interviewed.
3.5. Methods of Data Collection

The research combined five complementary methods of data collection, namely:
Interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), field observations and a review of
secondary data. The interviews were conducted with key informants while the FGDs
were held for members of the affected communities.
3.5.1. Primary Data

The researchers gathered empirical data from the selected regions. This involved
administering a survey instrument, conducting key informant interviews, FGDs and
field observations.
3.5.2. Structured Survey questionnaire.

A structured questionnaire is a form of data collection method that involves use of
a group or sequence of questions designed to get information from either a key
respondent or an informant. It can be administered by the interviewer or filled in
by the respondent without the aid of the interviewer. For this research, a structured
questionnaire was administered to randomly selected respondents during the initial
stage of the interview. This helped to get preliminary data on the nature, scope,
prevalence and magnitude of land disputes in selected districts of Uganda.
3.5.3. Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews are qualitative in-depth interviews with people with expertise
in the subject of the research. This method was adopted for this research to facilitate
the collection of information from a wide range of stakeholders and residents
including magistrates, police officers, community leaders, members of the Area
Land Committees and the LC III Court, District Land Board officials, CSOs and the
local people who have witnessed land disputes. It was opted for because first-hand
knowledge about the community would be obtained since these were people with
particular knowledge and their understanding could provide an insight on the nature of
problems and recommendations. It further helped in getting the statistics of the people
who were affected; when and where they were evicted from.

3.5.4. Focus Group Discussions

In addition to the key informant interviews, the research also used FGDs as one of the
methods of data collection. An FGD is a structured discussion used to obtain detailed
information from a group of people about a particular topic. This was employed to
obtain more detailed and comprehensive understanding of the land dispute issue and
get a broader range of the information since it elicits perceptions, beliefs, attitudes
and concerns of the people who have been affected. In addition, it was useful in
generating information through interaction between informants and observing how
people responded to each other’s views unlike the individual interviews. A total of 48
FGDs were held at sub-county level from all the 12 sampled districts. The selected
members included victims, local leaders and community members who had an
understanding on land disputes.
UHRC team conducting a Focus Group Discussion in Bbaale Sub-county, Kayunga district
3.5.5. Field Observations

Observation is a way of gathering data by watching behaviour, events, or noting
physical characteristics in their natural setting. Through observation, the researchers
were able to make use of all their senses to examine the people in naturally occurring
situations and the status of the victims’ homes, land and the surrounding, to better
understand the possible causes, effects and the complexity of land disputes.

3.5.6. Desk Research

Information from different articles and reports on land disputes authored by different
writers in newspapers and on internet platforms, informed this study. Contemporary
academic literature on the subject matter was also reviewed to give a theoretical
grounding to this research. Desk research was very effective and was conducted at
the starting phase of the research since it was quite quick and affordable. Most of the
basic information was easily retrieved and hence benchmarked in the process of this
research. The desk reviews continued throughout the report data analysis and report
writing.
3.6. Data Analysis

The quantitative data collected during the baseline survey and the key informant
interviews were processed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Qualitative data was analysed by coding and grouping of the responses according to
the key themes of the research. The data collection techniques were triangulated such
that quantitative data was used to measure the extent of the disputes while qualitative
data helped researchers gain an understanding of the lived experiences of the parties
to the land disputes. Quantitative methods were used to elaborate qualitative data.
3.7. Ethical Consideration

This Commission took into account some of the ethical issues that came up during
the research. Prior to obtaining information, participants were informed of the purpose
of the research and their informed consent was obtained. Due to the sensitivity of the
matter, the Commission considered the needs of the participants, especially the victims
who were once evicted, by ensuring that privacy and confidentiality was safeguarded.
To manage expectations of the respondents, they were informed that the research
was aimed at making recommendations that would inform policy. This was done to
avoid expectations of direct interventions by the Commission. The credibility of the
information obtained from the communities was verified through interviews conducted
with the key informants.
3.8. Limitations
Even though some of the findings could be generalised to land disputes in other parts
of the country; others were peculiar to the regions and districts where the study was
conducted. Secondly, in terms of the nature of land disputes, this research focused
on those involving government entities and the community or individuals as well as
those between private companies and individuals. Attempts were however, made to
include the disputes where government was not directly involved but where its lack
of intervention was believed to have escalated the disputes. Thus, the findings and
recommendations of the research may only be most applicable in addressing disputes
between government institutions and the communities, as well as those involving
private companies and communities or individuals.

CHAPTER FOUR:
Findings on land disputes and
their human rights implications
4.0. Introduction
The chapter presents the empirical findings from the research. It covers the prevalence
of land disputes, their forms and nature, magnitude/severity, their causes and effects,
the challenges in addressing them, the actors involved, as well as the most affected
areas and people.
4.1. Demographic Characteristics
Figure 1: Demographic characteristics of respondents
per centage of Gender (FGDs

and Key informats)
20%
Female
80% Male
The Commission used interviews with key informants and the FGDs as data
collection tools. This was in addition to a desk review of past reports and newspaper
articles related to the subject matter. On average, they were more male respondents
accounting for 80 per cent of the total respondents with females at 20 per cent. Of
the 465 total number of respondents, 68.5 per cent were participants in the FGDs
while 31.5 per cent were key informants. The majority of the 100 key informants were

between the 31-40 and 41-50 years age groups representing 34 and 33 respondents
respectively. However 7 respondents did not provide information about their age
groups. The details are indicated in the illustration below.
Figure 2: Respondents according to sex
The graph above indicates that 93 of the respondents revealed that land disputes
existed in their communities. Of those who revealed that land disputes occurred in
their areas, 86 per cent were male, of whom the majority (33 per cent) were between
the age group of 41-50 years; followed by the age group of 32-40 years at 32.3 per
cent. The female were at 14 per cent and mainly between the age group of 31-40
years which is 4.3 per cent.
Figure 3: Respondents per district
As indicated above, a total of 672 respondents of both the key informant interviews
and the FGDs were reached in the 12 districts in which the research was conducted.
The research registered a high turn up of respondents beyond the sample size
earlier planned when the methodology was set. This could point to the overwhelming

concern over land disputes in Uganda. Kayunga District had the highest number of
respondents (96) accounting for 14.3 per cent; followed by Mpigi District with 71 (11
per cent); and Buliisa District with 21 the least number of respondents at 3 per cent.
4.2. Prevalence of Land Disputes According to the Sex of the Respondents

Table 3: Prevalence of land disputes according to sex
Sex * Age groups * Presence of land disputes Cross tabulation

Age groups (years)
Presence of land disputes 61 and Total
20 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60
above
Count 2 30 31 13 4 80
Male
% of Total 2.2% 32.3% 33.3% 14.0% 4.3% 86.0%
Sex
yes Count 3 4 2 3 1 13
Female
% of Total 3.2% 4.3% 2.2% 3.2% 1.1% 14.0%
Count 5 34 33 16 5 93
Total
% of Total 5.4% 36.6% 35.5% 17.2% 5.4% 100.0%
From the above table it is indicated that 93 of the respondents revealed that land
disputes existed in their communities/areas. Of these, 86 per cent were male; the
majority (33 per cent) of whom were between the age group of 41-50 years, followed
by the 32-40 years age group at 32.3 per cent. The 14 per cent female were mainly
between the age group of 31-40 years representing 4.3 per cent.
4.3. Forms of Land Disputes

The study revealed that the most common form of land disputes within the selected
districts included family disputes which emerged the highest in terms of ranking,
followed by land grabbing, encroachment, borders disputes, forced evictions and
disputes over compensation. Details are given in the Figure below:-
Figure 4: Forms of Land Disputes

4.3.1. Land Grabbing in its Various Forms.

Cases of land grabbing were very common in most of the areas visited. For purposes
of this research land grabbing was taken to mean the “widespread, rapid increase
of commercial land transactions that involve the acquisition or long-term lease of
large areas of land by investors, particularly when these are disproportionate to the
average size of other land holdings in the area under scrutiny49. In Masindi District,
land grabbing was noted in Kasongwire parish, Budongo Sub County, where five
villages were allegedly surveyed and enclosed by Kinyara Sugar Works Company.
The villages affected were: Nyakieju, Waipacu, Terere, Kiryanyongo and parts of
Kyabibywenge where people could not grow sugar cane yet it was the most common
source of income in the area. During FGDs and key informant interviews, it was
alleged that in Buliisa District, a prominent businessman had allegedly bought off the
villages of Kirama, Bikongoro and Kigwera North East, yet for land that is communally
owned, the communities were not involved in the transactions.
In Karamoja region, a businessman was alleged to have deceived the LC chairperson
of Lorukumo village in Rupa Sub County, Moroto District that the government was going
to build a modern village in the area. He had persuaded the chairman to sign papers
consenting to giving away the land for the model village. Instead the businessman
had surveyed the land to have it titled in his name with the intention of selling it for his
own personal benefit. The land in question is estimated to be about 50 acres.
Similar incidents were also reported in Lomusia village in Kautakou Parish, Ngoleriet
Sub County in Napak District and in Moruita Sub County in Nakapiripirit District. In
Kautakou, an elite local was alleged to have sold communal land without the consent of
the villagers. At the time of compiling this report, the land in question was an industrial
and business park under Uganda Investment Authority. However, the same land was
also at the centre of dispute between residents of the neighbouring Nadunget Sub
County in Moroto District, who had allegedly sold it to the elite local. By the time of
compiling this report, this matter was still before court. The importance attached to
this land was emphasized by one FGD participant who pointed out:50
The land that has been taken is where our ancestors were buried; we are worried that
we may not have a place for our own burial.
In Nakapiripirit District, one civil servant who hails from Namalu Sub County is alleged
to have grabbed communal land belonging to the people of Moruita Sub County
without consulting them. The land in question is along the Nakapiripirit-Moroto road
and is estimated to be about 100 acres.
In Kagaba parish, Nalutuntu Sub County in Mubende District, a case was reported
of some communities who were allegedly evicted off 12 square miles of land. The
Commission learnt that the land in question had been given to veterans of the Kings
49 This definition is adopted from Golay and Biglio as cited in chapter two of this report.
50 FGD participant, Kautakou village, Napak district

African Rifles during Muteesa II regime (1940s-1960s). However, the land was taken
over by Nalutuntu Farm Group under unclear circumstances. It was also reported
that while some community members had been duly compensated, others had been
allegedly imprisoned and forcefully compelled to sign forms acknowledging sale of
their land. In other instances, some had not been compensated at all. One of the
respondents interviewed stated:
It was alleged that in 2008 Byaruhanga Emma was arrested and detained at Kireka
Special investigations Unit and while there, he was compelled to sign documents
indicating he had consented to the sale of his land or else he would not be released. He
signed the documents and upon returning to the community his land had allegedly been
taken over by Nalutuntu Farm Group. He now prowls around the area with no source
of livelihood.
4.3.2. Border Disputes

Border disputes manifested at three levels, namely: Inter-district border disputes, inter-
sub county border disputes and to a very small extent, international border disputes.
In Karamoja, inter-district disputes were noted between Napak and Moroto Districts
at the borders between Nadunget Sub County in Moroto District and Ngoleriet Sub
County in Napak District. This has created a problem of access to grazing lands by
pastoralists from one district to the other. In Napak there is also another contention
over the border with Katakwi District. This dispute affected the villages of Aleklek in
Iriir Sub County, Napak District and the sub counties of Ongongoja, Ngariam, Palaam
and Magoro in Katakwi District. There was a general feeling among the communities
in both districts that “big people” in government were fuelling the conflict. This claim
was based on the fact that members of the security agencies, notably UPF and UPDF
were involved in the matter51. The security agencies were also accused of selectively
arresting only the Karimojong and not the Iteso at the disputed border. One FGD
participant in Iriir Sub County observed that:
When the LCIII chairperson of Iriir Sub County went to follow up the issue of land at the
border, he was told by the Iteso at the border that they are only labourers on the land
but the people with interest are big government officials.
A violent border dispute was reported between Abim District on the one hand and
Napak and Amuria Districts on the other hand. The land in contention is a corridor
stretching from Lokopo Sub County in Napak District, South of Nyakwai Sub County
in Abim District up to the border with Otuke District. Several clashes have occurred in
the area in the past three years with several deaths and injuries reported. In Northern
Uganda, border disputes were reported between Amuru Town Council and Nwoya
District; between Gulu and Amuru Districts as well as Amuru and Adjumani Districts.
The Commission also noted border disputes between Masindi and Buliisa Districts in
the Western region, while in the Eastern region they were reportedly between Kween
51
During and FGD in Iriir sub county, Napak district, the participants informed the research team that the tractors that were cultivating within the disputes
border area belong to the Uganda police force. They wondered what interest the police had in the same land.

District and its neighbouring districts, as well as between Bududa and Manafwa
Districts.
Inter-sub county and parish border disputes were mainly noted in Moroto and
Nakapiripirit Districts. In Moroto Distrct, disputing sub counties were: Tapach and
Nadunget, Katikelile and Rupa as well as Katikelile and Moroto Municipality. Part of
the reason for the disputes was the discovery of minerals and the subsequent claim for
royalties from the mining companies. In addition, the expansion of Moroto Municipality
was not only affecting Katikekile Sub County but also the NFA forest reserve within
the sub county. In Tapach Sub County, a border dispute was noted between the
Matheniko and the Tepeth. The specific areas affected were Thimongorot, Seget,
Nakariwon, Napak-kakimul, Lomudita, Lonyilik and others. Similar border disputes
were also noted between the Karimojong (Pian) and the Pokot of Amudat District.
Some of the border disputes were ethnic in nature; pitting one ethnic group against
another. This was typical of the disputes in Karamoja between the Matheniko and
Bokora; Matheniko and Tepeth; as well as the Bokora and Ethur. In Buliisa District,
there were similar disputes between the Bagungu and the Balalo; the Bagungu and
Lugbara and in Amuru District, between the Acholi and the Madi.
At the international level, it was reported that a dispute existed between Uganda and
Kenya over the border in Rupa Sub County, Moroto District. However, it was not
possible to verify its extent and magnitude.
4.3.3. Encroachment on Conservation Areas

The study revealed cases of encroachment by the local communities on protected
areas as one of the forms of land disputes. These were mainly noted in Karamoja,
Bunyoro and Kayunga Districts affecting either the NFA or UWA. In Masindi District,
the study established that the local community had encroached on Budongo Forest
Reserve while in Buliisa District there were cases of encroachment on Lake Albert
shores and Buffer zones in Wanseko Parish, Ngwedo Sub County where people had
erected makeshift structures beyond the distance recommended for human habitation.
In Amuru District, residents of Apaa Parish, Labala Sub County were alleged to have
encroached on NFA East Madi Forest reserves and on Murchison Falls National
Park. This was also reported in Masindi District, where the communities neighbouring
Murchison Falls National Park had allegedly encroached on it. In Galilaya Sub County
in Kayunga District, a forest reserve covering six villages of Sokoso, Nkuttu, Kiribo,
Kasokwe, Nakabale and Kirasa were allegedly given to the people by the President of
the Republic of Uganda to use for cultivation. However, the Commission established
that two influential individuals had claimed ownership of the forest reserve and were
threatening to evict the local community.
Furthermore, cases of encroachment on a forest reserve were reported in Tepeth
County, Moroto District. The NFA claimed that the forest reserve within Tepeth County
covering Mount Moroto, which was gazetted way back in 1948, had been encroached
on by the natives. The community on the other hand asserted that the area in dispute

was their ancestral land on which they were born and have known as their only home.
The research revealed a rare scenario in Tapach Sub County, Moroto District where a
community was resisting the cutting of trees by the NFA in a protected area; a forest
reserve in Kilipas that was reportedly planted by the former forest department during
the colonial times. The community argued that cutting the forest would distort their
rain pattern and they insisted that NFA had to plant new trees before cutting down the
forest. The NFA justified their move to cut the trees which they noted had become old
and needed replacement.
One of the mark stones demarcating Bokora corridor game reserve in Apeitolim parish, Lokopo Sub
County, Napak district.
In Nabwal and Nakayot Parishes of Iriir Sub County, Napak District, the Commission
learnt that disputes arising from encroachment on the Pian Upe Game Reserve had
affected the enjoyment of social services offered by the district local government. The
respondents in these two areas reported that whenever the local authorities drilled
a borehole or constructed a school, they would be destroyed by officials from UWA,
claiming that they were in a game reserve. One responded explained this:52
After disarmament, we wanted to settle down and engage in crop cultivation. We first
settled at a place called Napuwa and Kolinyang then we moved to the current place
when we found it more productive than where we were settled before.
In Natirai Parish, Lolachat Sub County in Nakapiripirit District, the locals claimed that
UWA had extended its borders from Lokidotoro to their current settlement. One FGD
participant stated: 53
52
An FGD participant in Apeitolim Parish, Lokopo sub county, Napak district
53
An FGD participant, Lolachat Sub County, Nakapiripirit District

We just realised that the authority had erected mark stones without any notice. If one is
found digging within the area with mark stones, they are beaten and the farming tools
are confiscated. Even the borehole that was sunk by Nakapiripirit local government was
dismantled by the game ranger.
In Amaler village, Apeitolim Parish, Lokopo Sub County, Napak District, the community
was living under a continuous threat of eviction by UWA that claimed the people had
settled in the protected areas. In Lomoruchubae village, Lolet Parish, Lorengechora
Sub County in Napak District, 78 households had allegedly been evicted by UWA at
gun point in 2016 and 800 huts destroyed.
The Commission noted that one of the biggest challenges was that most government-
owned land was not surveyed and this was making it susceptible to encroachment
by local communities. This was also the case with Amoruongora primary school in
Ngariam Sub County and the Asuret forest reserve in Omodoi Sub County in Katakwi
District.
The Commission noted that while the agencies concerned with conservation were
rightfully exercising their mandate, the local communities in the districts sampled felt
that they were unfairly being stopped from using their ancestral land. Coincidentally,
for the case of Karamoja region, some of the land under contention was the most
fertile in the region. This was affecting the livelihoods of some local communities who
claim customary attachment to the said land.
4.3.4. Disputes over Compensation

The study revealed that some of the disputes related to compensation over land
for various infrastructural projects. This was mostly in areas where major road
construction works were underway. In Katakwi District, for example, the Commission
learnt that the community had not been adequately sensitised about compensation
arising from the construction of the Soroti-Moroto road by UNRA. According the land
supervisor Katakwi Town Council, the situation had been worsened by those who
grabbed land along the said road anticipating bigger compensation. In Kween District,
where the construction of the Kapchorwa-Bukwo road was on-going, the respondents
reported that some people whose land was along the roads had encroached on the
road reserve.
The dimension of the inadequacy of the compensation rates was noted in parts of
Western Uganda. In Buliisa District for example, whereas UNRA had a compensation
plan for the Hoima–Butiaba road to Wanseko Landing Site, some residents had
expressed dissatisfaction over the compensation rate. One district official stated thus:
Even before the compensation takes off, people in Buliisa have already begun raising
complaints to the district with uncertainty whether the compensation will measure up to
how much land has been lost in the process of working on Hoima-Butiaba road.
At the time of the research, the MoLHUD was conducting verification for purposes of
compensation in Kasinyi, Ngwedo Sub County, Buliisa District. One of the residents

of Ngwedo Sub County in Buliisa District lamented that;

The district and central Government should be fair and revise their compensation rates.
Imagine, all the graves of our parents will soon be razed out and we will totally lose
memory of them and yet the compensation is only about 100,000 shillings. That is so
unfair and unrealistic. There are mango trees that have fed generations in my land and
they will soon be no more but the compensation for it cannot measure up and is not
worth the loss.
In other instances, it was alleged that compensation was given selectively. This was the
case in Pacilo Parish, Atiak Sub County in Amuru District where people were alleged
to have been evicted by Gem Gem Farm sugar factory. Some were compensated and
others claimed they were not; a matter that is pending before court.
In Mugongo Village, Bbaale Sub County in Kayunga District, the Commission learnt
that people were not adequately compensated for their land. Findings revealed that
only the elderly were compensated a paltry sum of UGX 200,000 for their land, crops
and houses. The Commission was also informed that some community members
rejected the small amounts given as compensation. Consequently, the buyer resorted
to violence to compel the community members to accept it.
4.3.5. Family Disputes

Whereas this was not one of the areas of focus for this research, the Commission
found a number of cases of family disputes, particular regarding succession, owing
to the fact that people died without leaving a will. There were individual complaints
reported to police, court, LCs and most of them were as a result of unclear boundaries.
These disputes arose due to challenges of land fragmentation especially in Buliisa
District where almost all land was given away and the small parcels of land left had to
be shared among many family members.
4.4. Areas Affected by Land Disputes

The Commission’s finding revealed that land disputes existed in all the 12 districts
where the research was conducted. Specifically, a total of 125 parishes in 40 sub
counties within the 12 districts where the study was conducted were affected by land
disputes.

Table 4: Areas affected by Land disputes
S/N District Sub County Parish

Bukuya Kagaba
Bukoba
Kanyogoga
Nalutuntu Bukompe
Kabagala
Rwamasanga
Kamusenene
01 Mubende Nkokooma
Rwentuuha
Kiganda
Kilerwe
Musozi
Kitayiza A and B
Kawolo
Butoroogo Kisagazi
Kisagala
Kakuba
Katungo
Nsuube
Bbaale
Mugongo
Misanga B
Kokotero
02 Kayunga
Gwero
Sokoso
Nkuttu
Galiraaya
Kasokwe
Nakabale
Kirasa
Nsiima
Makukulu
Bukerere
Nsanva
Kayonza
Lusagga
Namavundu
Nawankonge
Kyamugongo


Mugge
Nabyewanga
Nkozi Kigyaomayi Parish
Kasebwende village
Kaamaliba
Nabitete
03 Mpigi
Katebo
Bungule
Buwama
Mbizzinya
Buijja
Lubugumu
Muduma Namwabula
Nakabath
Lorukumo
Rupa
Musupo
Nakiloro
Napeedo
03 Moroto Kosiroi
Thimongorok
Tapach Tapach
Nakamowooreth
Napoachokon
Katikekile Lia
Ngoleriet Kautakou
Alekek Parish
Iriir
Nabwal
04 Napak
Lokopo Apeitolim
Lomoruchabae
Lorengechora
Lolet
Moruita Komacaren
Lopedot
Nakuyon
05 Nakapiripirit Namalu
Kokuwam
Angolethuroth
Lolachat Natirai


Angisa
Oriau
Magoro Kamenu
Magoro
Toroma
Aparisia
Asuret
Omodoi
Angodingod
Amusia
06 Katakwi
Aliakamer
Abella
Katakwi
Alukuchok,
Aleles
Katakwi
Dokomer
Pamba
Katakwi Town Council
Angopet
Ajeiluk cells
Kapkwata
Kwanyi Nyimei
Kapulekep
Korite,
Kiriki Nabijeje
07 Kween Ayore
Makunga
Ngenge
Chepskunya
Kwobus
Binyiny Town council
Kapkworos
Bumishisho
Buhawaha
Bushika Namakuto
Bubungi
Bunamanda
Busai
08 Bududa Bududa Bukibino
Bukimuma
Bumakita
Nalwanza Bunango
Bumakwa
Buloli South,
Bududa Town Council
Bududa cells


Gaya
Pogo
Pabbo Labala/Apaa Sub Parish
Palwong
Parubanga
Pacilo
Kal West
Atiak Palukere
09 Amuru District
Parwaca
Pacilo
Bibia(Elegu)
Olwal
Lamogi Guru Guru
Pagoro
Amuru Lakang
Pagak
Kigwera Kasinyi
Ngwedo Wanseko
10 Buliisa District
Buliisa Buliisa Town Council
Butiaba
Budongo Kasongwire
Kimengo Buruli
Nyangahya
Kikwanana
11 Masindi District Kiryanga
Pakanyi Kyakamese
Ntooma
Bwijanga
Bikonzi
Rukondwa
4.5. Magnitude /Severity of Land Disputes

It was not possible to establish the exact size of land under dispute in most of those
cited during the study. Most of the research participants could not give the actual size
or estimates of the land in dispute. However it was clear from their descriptions that
some of the disputes involved land covering whole villages, parishes or even sub
counties. In Katakwi District for example, seven villages were evicted by UWA from
a 300 square kilometre piece of land. In Kween District, 12 villages from Kapkwata,
Nyimei and Kapulekep parishes in Kwanyi Sub County were reportedly evicted from
their land estimated to be around 10.76 hectares.
The dispute involving UPS in Namalu, Nakapiripirit District affected seven villages. In
Kosiroi village in Moroto District, the land claimed by Tororo Cement Company was

equivalent to all the area with marble stones in more than three parishes in Tapach
Sub County. The dispute involving NFA in Moroto District affected the whole of Tepeth
county constituency, covering the two sub counties of Katikekile and Tapach, while in
Rupa Sub County, about 50 acres were allegedly grabbed by a local businessman,
Cornelius Kodet.
The study established that the number of people involved varied from place to place.
While in some instances only a single individual was the party to the dispute, in
other areas more than 50 people or the total population of a village were involved. In
Katakwi District, for example, 57 families were evicted from Angisa Parish in 2016.
In Kwanyi Sub County, Kween District, the Commission observed that many evicted
families were living in camps. At the time of the study, the population at Rwanda camp
was 169 families; Kisangani camp had 87 families; and Kukumai camp in Kiriki Sub
County had 661 families. Kisitu camp in Benet Sub County had 187 families while
Yatui camp in Kosir Sub County had 400 people.
In Ngenge Sub County, five people were reported to have lost their lives due to land
disputes that occurred from January to May 2017 when the research was conducted.
A resident of Ngenge Sub County in Kween District testified:
On Sunday 14/05/2017 at around 5:20pm I was at the Ngenge Trading Centre, I saw
people running towards the clinic and I was also hearing people say they have brought
a person about to die. Out of curiosity, I ran up to the clinic and when I reached there
I found a nurse struggling to offer help to the person, she then requested me to help
her to support the patient who was bleeding profusely from the upper arm towards the
armpits. The nurse and the doctor tried to put him on drip but he continued to become
weak until he died. The police also came to the clinic and shortly we left for the site
where the land dispute was, on reaching, we found two arrows that were allegedly used
by the killer. The deceased had bought land from him but some remaining acres to be
given to the buyer were under dispute and that is what caused the death. By the time of
this research, the suspect was at large but few days later the RDC announced that he
had been arrested and was in police custody.
In the Central Region, all the districts sampled were affected by land disputes. In
Mubende District for instance, the most affected sub-counties were Butoroogo, Kiganda,
Bukuya and Nalutuntu. In Butoroogo Sub-County, the affected villages included Kawolo,
Kisagazi and Kisagala, where approximately 2000 acres of land were in dispute.
Respondents alleged that a one Samwiri Bivanju appeared out of the blue and claimed
ownership of the land. He was always threatening to evict them despite failure to prove
that he was the landlord.
In Kiganda Sub-County, Kamusenene, Nkokooma, Rwentuha, Kilerwe, Musozi and
Kitayiza A and B Villages were affected. Respondents alleged that a one Stella
Kakuba claimed ownership of 2½ sq. miles of the public land on which approximately
1000 people lived. Respondents further alleged that there had been threats to evict
them yet they were certain that Stella Kakuba did not own the land.

In Nalutuntu Sub-County, some communities were allegedly evicted off 12 square miles
covering the villages of Bukoba, Kanyogoga, Bukompe, Kabagala, and Rwamasanga
by a one Abid Alarm (Alarm Group) without being duly compensated. In Bukuya Sub-
County, Kagaba Village, most of the land in dispute measuring approximately 500
acres was registered under the Ente clan, however there were other plots of land
in dispute. The Commission learnt that these disputes were mostly attributed to
gold mining a major economic activity in the area and the poor relationship between
landlords and bibanja owners.
In Kayunga District, Kayonza, Baale and Galiraaya Sub-Counties were affected. In
Kayonza Sub-County for instance, respondents alleged that people were evicted
from 2058 acres of public land by three wealthy individuals who claimed ownership
over the land. However, the community was able to contest the claim because the
land in question was public land. The Commission also learnt that Kayunga Sugar
Company had attempted to evict people off 3900.906 acres of land in Namavundu
village, Kayonza Sub-County claiming that the District Land Board donated the land
to the company. However, the District Land Board denied giving out the land.
In Mugongo Village, Bbaale Sub County, respondents alleged that a prominent
government official bought 3sq miles of land from a one Muvunza Ismail in 2001 with
over 1000 tenants living on it. Respondents further alleged that the official also sold
the land to a Danish investor without their knowledge. The Commission was also
informed that the Danish investor attempted to evict them without duly compensating
them. Only the elderly were compensated a small sum of money.
The piece of land in Nalutuntu sub county, Mubende District, estimated to be about 12 hectares that was
at the centre of a dispute

In Kiribo village, Galiraaya Sub-County, the Commission was informed that

communities living on approximately 640 acres of land were distressed by a landlord
who often destroyed people’s crops and arrested some community members. It was
reported that the original landlord had a cordial relationship with the tenants but this
changed when he sold the land to someone else. The Commission also learnt that the
landlords have been changing over the years and the current landlord was not known
by the tenants.
In Namwabula village, Muduma Sub-County, Mpigi District, the Commission was
informed that Lutugga’s family and a one Mulowoza were clashing over 1 square mile
of land with Indians. Respondents also alleged that the Lutugga family turned up from
Sembabule in 2016 and expressed interest in the land after accessing information
about an oil refinery project likely to take off in the area.
4.5.1. The Apaa Land Conflict in Amuru District

At the time of compiling the report, the country had witnessed violent clashes that
erupted between the Acholi and Madi over a border dispute over 42 km2 of land under
contention. According to media reports, the clash reportedly left over eight people dead
and 20 injured, in addition to displacing 2,734 Madi and 1,924 Acholi. The incidents
left the area tense with people under a lot of fear. The conflicts in Amuru District had
three dimensions, namely: The conflict over land for the Madhvani sugar factory, the
dispute between Amuru District and Adjumani over an administrative boundary and a
conflict between UWA, NFA and the community.
A Focus Group Discussion in Apaa Village, Amuru District during the research

During an FGDin Apaa village, Amuru District, the Chairperson LC1 Sitwell stated:
From the time I begun leadership as the LC1 leader, Apaa has been receiving financial
support and social services from Amuru district. How then does Adjumani district turn
around and say Apaa belongs to them? Government should look at this issue very
seriously, otherwise the situation will soon get out of hand.
The contention regarding the Madhvani Group was about a planned survey to secure
10,000 hectares of land for them to establish a sugarcane plantation in Amuru District,
a move that the communities were opposed to. The contested land is located south
of the Zoka Forest in Amuru District, Acholi sub-region, and is approximately 130kms
north-west of Gulu town. This dispute ended up in the courts of law whereby judgment
was entered in favour of Amuru District Land Board that was given a go ahead to
grant the lease to Madhvani. However the community members of Amuru District,
who appealed the court decision, insisted that the land belonged to them.
Another critical issue was the allegation of investment and business interest in the
East-Madi game reserve by several parties. It was alleged that government entered
into an agreement with a South African-based businessman, Bruce Martins to run a
tourism business on the land. However the community was disgruntled claiming they
had never been consulted regarding their land.
Anek Karamera of Apaa sub parish in Amuru District spoke to the Commission about
this:
If what is alleged is true that government has already received money from investors
for this land in question, Let them (government) pay back the investors so that we can
remain peaceful people.
4.6. Causes of Land Disputes
4.6.1. Population Increase and Urbanisation

The ever increasing population, coupled with urbanisation was noted as one of the
causes of land disputes. In the Central Region, this was attributed to an influx of
immigrants and settlers who illegally occupy people’s land leading to land scarcity. It
was alleged that due to legal constraints on access, skewed distribution among users,
many people have been left with little or no land at all given the intense competition for
it. The Commission further established that overpopulation has resulted into generally
high person to land ratios, making it unevenly distributed.
In Masindi and Buliisa Districts, the discovery of oil and the resultant speculation of
investors and other people regarding business opportunities were cited as key drivers
behind the population influx as people migrated to those areas. One key informant,
Mr. Mbabazi of Buliisa said:
Those who had abandoned this area, together with new people seeking to buy land as
a result of the oil activities have migrated here, putting pressure on our land and hence
leading to conflicts.

In Moroto District, the proposed expansion of Moroto Municipality caused a rift with
the residents of Nabuin and Singila Villages, Lia Parish, Katikekile Sub County, who
feared that it would affect their land ownership. In Central Region, the Commission
was informed that as a result of the increasing population the demand for housing had
increased as well. This prompted real estate developers such as Jomayi, Zion, and
Hossana among others to purchase huge chunks of land for developments in order
to conform to the standards of the middle class. Respondents alleged that some of
the purchases were done unlawfully with communities often forcefully evicted off their
land without adequate compensation. In Western region, in Bugana Parish, Buliisa
Sub County, Buliisa District, the Commission noted conflicts between cattle keepers
and cultivators.
4.6.2. Unclear District and Sub County Borders

Most of the respondents interviewed attributed the increasing cases of land disputes
in their areas to unclear district borders. Respondents in Katakwi District cited the
long-standing border dispute between Katakwi and Napak Districts as the cause of
land disputes. They intimated that the border between the two districts had never
been defined by government even though it had tried to demarcate it in 2016 but it was
rejected by the leaders of Napak District. While most of the respondents from Katakwi
District blamed the district political leadership of Napak for fuelling the border disputes54
, those from Napak District expressed a general feeling that “big people” in government
were behind the border conflict with selfish motives. They based this claim on the fact
that every time they took initiative to resolve the matter at local level, other politicians
frustrated their efforts.
The unclear border between Amuru and Adjumani Districts was cited as a factor in
the land conflicts in Apaa Village in Amuru District. In an Interview with the Member of
Parliament Kilak County Hon. Gilbert Olanya, he noted that the conflict between the
Madi and the Acholi has been long-standing. He narrated:
The Apaa land question started around 2012 over a disputed area in Apaa Parish where
a mark stone was to be erected to demarcate the boundary between Adjumani and
Amuru Districts. This situation was made worse when the Minster for Lands one Daudi
Migereko and Gen. Aronda Nyakairima (now deceased) visited the area with plans to
demarcate the contested area. However several disagreements flared to the extent of
some women stripping naked as a way of expressing their disgruntlement, which was
regrettable.
In Eastern Region, the study noted that Kween District had no clear boundaries with
all its neighbouring districts namely: Bukwo, Amudat, and Bulambuli. Other district
border disputes were reported between Bududa and Manafwa Districts. In addition,
respondents in the FGD in Bushika village reported that a river which is the landmark
that separates the sub county land and the community land often floods and distorts
the boundaries, hence leading to disputes.
54
They allege that the LC V chairman of Napak one time went and uprooted the border poles that had been planted by the government surveyor.

The Commission noted that cases of border and boundary disputes were more
prevalent in areas with customary and communal land tenure systems such as Amuru,
Masindi and Buliisa Districts. The respondents revealed that because of this type of
land ownership, there were no clear boundaries of land and no proper documentation
for the size of the land, a situation that led to encroachment.
4.6.3. Negative Peace Dividend

Respondents interviewed in Amuru, Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit, Katakwi and Kween
Districts attributed the increasing cases of land disputes to the negative peace dividend.
They explained that when security was restored in the regions of Karamoja, Teso,
Sebei and Northern Uganda, following the successful disarmament by the government
of Uganda and the cessation of hostilities between the rebel LRA and the UPDF, people
started scrambling for land that had been deserted by communities. Upon returning to
their lands communities found that it had already been occupied, hence the disputes.
One key informant in Napak District pointed out:55
Most of the land under dispute appeared to belong to no one as it was abandoned
due to insecurity, drought and famine. When peace was restored in Karamoja region,
people occupied areas that were previously insecure and sparsely populated. This has
caused conflict among communities especially pastoralist communities.
In Teso and Sebei Sub Regions, most respondents reported that from 1979 they were
displaced from their land for over 20 years as a result of Karimojong cattle rustlers and
the LRA rebel activities. When peace was restored in the area, people who having
stayed in camps for almost two decades, returned to their land but could not trace the
boundaries as most original land marks had disappeared and the elders who knew had
died. Instead they settled on other people’s land.
Similarly, in Acholi Sub Region, the escalating cases of land conflicts were linked to
the end of the LRA insurgency and the return of previously displaced persons to their
original lands. The protracted war led to the death of elders who were knowledgeable
about land boundaries, while the displacement led to the loss of boundary landmarks.
A resident of Amuru District observed:
The aftermath of insurgency in Northern Uganda left many people displaced and led
to the loss of life of many elderly people who were familiar with boundary marks. Upon
return from the camps, people began guessing where the old boundaries used to be.
Most of the young generations do not know their actual land demarcations while some
relatives have taken advantage of the situation to grab land mostly from orphans,
widows and other vulnerable persons
4.6.4. Negative Cultural Practices

Land disputes were also linked to some negative cultural practices such as reported in
Teso and Sebei Sub Regions. It was revealed that some cultures prohibited childless
women and men from inheriting any land. This mostly applied to elderly men and
55
Excerpts from a key informant in Moroto district.

women. In addition, the mentality that women could not own land was still prevalent
in some communities, thus women were denied the chance to inherit their husbands’
and parents’ properties. The most affected were the divorced women and single
mothers. These practices were also reported in some parts of the Central Region. The
Commission established that some of the discriminatory practices hindering women’s
enjoyment of their rights, including inheritance of property were still prevalent in some
parts of the country. One key informant from Mubende District stated:
I am a true Muganda who cannot deviate from my culture; therefore, none of my
daughters can inherit any portion of my land because it would be an abomination
4.6.5. Government Policy on Gazetting Conservation Areas

Some government policies, though well intentioned and backed by the law, were
found to be detrimental to people’s access to land. In Karamoja region for example,
most of the disputes were attributed to the government policy of designating most of
the fertile lands in the regions as game reserves, forest reserves or prison farms. Most
respondents were of the view that government was giving more priority to the animals,
without due consideration to the needs of the humans. One of the key informants
interviewed in Moroto District explained:56
In Karamoja about 46 per cent of the land is gazetted as wildlife conservation areas.
Coincidentally, these are the most fertile areas in the region. With the prevailing security
situation, most people are moving to protected areas for cultivation hence leading to the
conflicts. There is a lack of understanding of the way of life and source of livelihood for
communities.
In Angisa parish, Magoro Sub County in Katakwi District, the respondents estimated
that by 2016, about 57 families had been evicted from the 300 square kilometre piece
of land located on Pian-Upe Game Reserve, along the borders of Karamoja and
Teso. UWA insisted that in 1939 when the reserve was demarcated, there were no
people settled in the area but the residents claim they inherited the said land from
their ancestors.
In Bududa District, there were counter accusations between the locals and UWA
regarding encroachment, with residents accusing UWA of denying them access to
their land, while UWA insisted that these were encroachers. The Commission was
informed that the community members were not allowed to access the forest to carry
out any economic activity. The matter was before Mbale High Court awaiting judgment.
In Kween District, the community accused UWA of evicting them without giving them
alternative land for resettlement. One of the evictees explained:
Before demarcation of the forest reserve, our great grand parents lived in the forests.
They were staying and cultivating food in this forest. Even during the colonial time in
56
Interview with a key informant in Napak district

1955, they were living there without disturbance. In 1980, the area was demarcated as
forest reserve and trees were planted in another part but no one was evicted. In 1993,
UWA took over and displaced people through forced eviction where by people were
beaten, houses and property burnt and vandalised. As you see, almost all of us were
born in the forest but when we were evicted from the forest, we found ourselves on this
rock (Rwandet) which we have now called Rwanda IDP Camp. However, some people
reported us to the government as the former workers of NFA who were staying in the
forest illegally which is not true.
4.6.6. Corruption and Fraudulent Sale of Lands

The fraudulent and multiple sale of land were reported as key drivers of land conflicts.
In Katakwi District, the District Land Board was accused of allocating land to more than
one person due to poor record management. It was further noted that the District Land
Board allocated land without conducting inspections, ultimately leading to multiple sale
of land. In Bududa District, respondents within Bududa Town Council reported about
the allocation of plots by the District Land Board to more than one person.57 In Kween
District, Ngenge Sub County (lower belt) respondents reported some “mafias” who
allegedly surveyed their land and that of others which they later sold to private investors.
They named the investors as Kato, Ever Green and Foul Company, dealing in local
crops such as sun flower, rice, maize, sorghum and beans.
In Buliisa District, it was established that many peasants had fallen victim to fraudsters
who were mostly wealthy businessmen, speculators and middle men targeting business
opportunities within the oil and gas industry. The Commission also found that as a
consequence of this fraud some land titles were reportedly cancelled in Buliisa District,
following a directive from the President of the Republic of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni.
The land titles affected were those issued between 2010 and 2017, involving about
5,090 hectares of land. While this was seen as a move to protect the land owners, there
were concerns about the delay in permanently resolving the issue. One resident said:58
There are people who genuinely bought land and they have been equally affected.
Government should expedite the process of correcting this irregularity because it has
halted very many activities
Another respondent observed that:

We are not sure if government is not using this as a strategy to acquire land from the oil
rich Buliisa because everything has gone silent. We are afraid that probably government
is enforcing its plan of compulsorily acquiring land for infrastructural development.
Related to the above were allegations of corruption and bribery allegedly perpetrated
by officials in institution handling land disputes. The Commission was informed that
57
This was the case for land and houses of former Indians which government had already sold to the local people was reportedly reallocated to other
people.
58
Excerpts from a key informant interview

corruption and bribery were at all levels of land administration, right from the LC
Courts, District Land Boards, Police, Judiciary and others often leading to conflict of
interest. Even the traditional leaders who used to adjudicate land matters with integrity
and based on their indigenous knowledge were reported to have been affected by the
vice. One respondent in Ngenge Sub County observed:
You can never win a case in court if you have no money. When you go to court, you are
told to see the judge and this means you have to part with money. You even don’t know
what language to speak to the judge. Those who give in “kitu Kidogo” get all they want
done and according to their preference.
4.6.7. Increased Infrastructural Development

Respondents also revealed that the proliferation of big infrastructural projects such as
major road construction in many parts of the country contributed to the increasing cases
of land disputes. The construction of Moroto-Soroti road was reported to have led to
land wrangles due to anticipation of compensation from UNRA. This was reported in
Ngoleriet Sub-County in Napak District. Whereas the residents welcomed the idea of
tarmacking the road, they were concerned that some individuals were grabbing land
along the road construction sites, anticipating bigger compensation, hence leading
to disputes. It was also noted that some of the road construction projects were done
without adequate consultation of the affected communities, a factor that escalated the
disputes.
This was the case in Kween District where UNRA surveyed the Kapchorwa-Bukwo
road through Kween, in preparation for tarmacking before consulting the local people.
4.6.8. Institutional Weaknesses

The Commission established that the weaknesses inherent in institutions charged
with land administration in Uganda were another factor leading to land disputes. The
weaknesses were in the institutions charged with addressing the disputes as well
as some of the statutory bodies entrusted with protecting the conservation areas
under dispute. The study found that many institutions charged with resolving land
disputes did not have adequate capacity to efficiently and effectively address them.
In particular, the Area Land Committees were reportedly not properly equipped with
knowledge on the laws and procedures of resolving the disputes.
Furthermore, the study revealed that while most of the LCs were managing land deals,
their term of office expired almost a decade ago. Those LC officials who were elected
ten years ago continued to operate illegally while others had since died and needed
to be replaced. Interviews revealed that when the LC courts were still operating they
used to solve many cases in a cheaper and faster process without the rigidities of the
other courts. This also had implications on the work of the LC III Court that operates
as an appellate court of the LC II Court. In some areas such as Ngenge and Kiriki Sub
Counties in Kween District, the respondents reported that the Area Land Committee

and LC III Court members were not yet in place at the time of conducting this study.
Regarding civil society, the Commission found out that few CSOs were directly
involved in land matters. In Karamoja for example, CSOs such as the Karamoja
Integrated Development Programme (KIDEP) filled in some of the gaps created by
the weak state institutions. However, such interventions, though very critical, were
found to be short-lived and not sustainable as they were reliant on donor funding.
It was also noted that there was lack of coordination between the sub county, the
district and the local community in relation to land transactions, leading to land
disputes. Most respondents, especially in the mining areas of Rupa, Katikekile and
Tapach in Moroto District noted that the district and central government authorities did
not share with them information regarding the investors that had been allocated land.
This was also noted in Moruita Sub County in Nakapiripirit District. One key informant
in Napak District explained:
The institutions and mechanisms in place are not explained to people. People see
government as alien. People look at courts of law as inaccessible and corrupt.
During an FGD, in Kosiroi Trading Centre in Tapach Sub County, Moroto District, a
participant stated:59
We always report our land cases to the sub county authorities but they have not helped
us much. Sometime agents of Tororo Cement proceed to the sub county, discuss with
them and they agree, yet we are not informed of what they have discussed
The delay by the courts of law to dispose of land cases was noted as leading to their
persistence. In Masindi and Buliisa Districts in Western Region, most respondents
alleged that the court process was too slow in adjudicating land matters. Some cases
reportedly took close to ten years before being disposed, escalating already existing
conflicts as people tended to take the law into their hands. Some respondents
complained that courts tended to favour those who were more affluent compared
to the ordinary poor who could not afford the court fees. On their part, the Judiciary
claimed that the manpower and facilitation were insufficient, causing them to be
overwhelmed by cases. A resident of Mubende District summarised the statement:
“Omwavu tasiinga omusango”, literally meaning that a poor person can never win a
case.
The inefficiency within the institutions was also cited as a reason for the double
allocation of plots in Katakwi Districts. The other related concern expressed by
respondents was the reluctance by the government to intervene at the early stages
of the disputes. It was noted that whenever such disputes occurred, as was the
case with the border disputes between Napak and Katakwi districts, responsible
government departments did not respond immediately. The respondents also felt that
the government was unwilling to take a clear position on some of the disputes.
59
An FGD participant in Kosiroi village, Tapach sub county, Moroto district

4.6.9. Changing Land Use Pattern

The increasing cases of land disputes were also attributed to the changing land use
patterns in most parts of Uganda. Specifically, the shift from cattle keeping to crop
cultivation in areas like Ngenge and Kiriki Sub Counties in Kween District increased
the demand for individually owned land. Initially the local people were cattle keepers
and the land was owned communally without boundaries. It was further reported that
some people from other sub counties and districts were flocking Ngenge and Kiriki
Sub Counties to grab land that they assumed was free. This trend was common in
most of the sub counties in Kween District, although it was more pronounced along
Ngenge and Atari river banks, where the land is said to be fertile and has access to
water.
In other instances, the conflicts arose as a result of competing land use practices.
This was the case in Karamoja where the rush by individuals to acquire land for
commercial purposes was in conflict with the pastoralist lifestyle which favours
communal land ownership. However, with time, the pressure persisted in favour of
cultivation and private land ownership as opposed to pastoralism and communal land
ownership even though the concept of private ownership of land was new among the
communities. Coincidentally, the move to encourage cultivation as opposed to cattle-
keeping seemed to be the thinking behind most government interventions in Karamoja
Region. This has precipitated land disputes in the region. The respondents also
decried the lack of an official policy to regulate land use by pastoralist communities.
The Commission established that advocating for crop cultivation without giving due
consideration to other land use practices such as pastoralism fuelled conflict. Similar
trends were noted in Buliisa District escalating the land disputes there.
4.6.10. Political Interference in Land Matters

Cases of interference in land matters by politicians were also cited as a factor in
escalation of land disputes. During interviews with officials from NFA, UWA and UPF
politicians were accused of siding with communities to encroach on game and forest
reserves, especially during political campaign seasons. The Commission was also
informed that some political leaders interfered and influenced decisions of land cases
especially where they had personal interest.
In Central Region for example, the study found that councillors and other politicians
often incited bibanja holders against landlords. Findings revealed that influential
people in government were involved in demarcating land in Kayunga Forest Reserve
and parcelling it to themselves. In Moroto District, the Commission was informed by
the NFA that area politicians had mobilised the locals to oppose a move by NFA to
harvest the forest in Kilipas, around Mount Moroto.

In Northern Region, some political leaders were alleged to have made very outrageous
statements that sometimes incited violence. One respondents restated common
statements by Acholi politicians:60
The Acholi people only have land that they are left with after the insurgency destroyed
the region, therefore nobody should joke around with your land. We have been through
war all this time, and we won’t get afraid to get into another civil war to protect our land.
In addition, it was reported that the border conflict between Napak and Katakwi
Districts had dragged on for four decades without any concrete resolution due to
the alleged interests among politicians from the two districts. It was reported that
at least three meetings involving political leaders both at the central and district
local government level had been held to resolve the issues but without success. In
Nakapiripirit District, respondents cited the role of politicians in the allocation of land
that the community claimed was theirs to Veronia Company in Moruita Sub County,
without their consent.
4.6.11. Delayed Resettlement of Evicted People

Delays in resettling some of the victims of land evictions were also pointed out
as a contributing factor to land disputes. In Kween District, key informants made
reference to the October 2005 Mbale High Court judgement recognising the Benet as
the historical and indigenous inhabitants of parts of Mount Elgon National Park. The
ruling reportedly required that the Benet be allowed to carry out agricultural activities
in the areas to which they had historical claim. Residents however, informed the
Commission that UWA had ignored the ruling just as they had also disregarded a
presidential directive in 2011 to resettle Benet people in London area claiming that it
was too fragile to withstand settlement.
4.6.12. Poor Documentation of Past Land Transactions

The Commission was informed that poor documentation of land that had previously
been donated to institutions such as churches, schools and health centres by original
land owners, was also a factor fuelling land disputes. This was reported in cases
where the people that had gifted their land in such a way had died. It was noted that
descendants were claiming back land donated by their grandparents to government
institutions.
Conflicts were also noted between foundation bodies of schools and key school
administrations over land. In Katakwi District such conflicts were affecting Kokorio
Primary School in Kapaujan, Palam Primary School, Amoruongoro Primary School
and Obulengorok Primary School in Ongongoja Sub County in addition to the parish
land in Abella Parish. Similarly, Olwal Mucaja Primary school and Giragira Primary
School in Amuru District experienced such conflicts.
60
Key informant, Amuru district

4.6.13. Gaps in the Existing Land Laws

The Commission was informed by participants that the weak customary land tenure
system which was prevalent in almost all the districts under study also fuelled conflict.
The respondents in Northern, Karamoja and Eastern Regions identified the challenges
and gaps in the legal system relating to customary land tenure system as provided
for in the Land Act. They were wary of procedures for registering customary land or
converting customarily owned land into freehold. One key informant in Napak District
noted:61
The Problem is with the law, especially when it comes to conversion of customary land
into freehold but without due consideration of the needs of communal land owners.
This is compounded by the absence of organised community groups to benefit from the
certificate of customary ownership.
The decentralised functions relating to land use and administration were also a
cause for concern. In the interviews the residents noted that the land titling process
was centralised thus making it inaccessible to grass roots communities owing to
the technicalities involved. It was noted that in as much as government through
the MoLHUD had come up with a strategy to bring services closer to the people by
opening up several zonal offices across the country to improve on land transactions,
there were still gaps. Government had made an effort to improve transactions such
as the transfer of land, acquiring letters of administration, replacement of damaged
titles, title searches, among others using computerised Land Information Systems, but
no amendments were made to the Registration of Titles Act to reflect the strategies.
Section 37 of the Act provides for paper form register books while Section 38 provides
for certificates in duplicate which in most cases encouraged fraud, forgery, lack of
proper information flow, loss of documents, among other vices. It was also observed
that most of the zonal offices were not yet fully operational in the districts visited like
Lira District (during the baseline study) and Masindi District. All these factors gave rise
to conflicts. It was further observed that such factors similarly affected the processes
of licensing mining companies, which is vested in the Commissioner of Geological
Mines and Survey but with minimal involvement of the affected land owners. A key
informant in Moroto District observed on the Mining Act:62
The laws that govern mining do not empower the local authorities such as the LC 5
chairperson and LC 3. It is only the Chief administrative office (CAO) involved in the
process.
4.6.14. Limited Knowledge

In addition to the legal loopholes, the lack of awareness of the land laws by both the
members of the community and the institutions mandated to address land matters
was reported as a gap by most of the people interviewed. This was in respect to laws
relating to land ownership, acquisition and dispute resolution. It was observed that the
61
Key informant, Moroto district
62
Interview with a key informant in Moroto district.

participants in the FGDs had very little knowledge of the existing land laws and policies
to acquire and own land. The Commission found a knowledge gap on issues like the
computation of compensation, acquisition of land by a non-citizen and the process of
acquiring land titles. It was noted that much as some people were occupying pieces of
land, they had no legitimate proof of the legal status of their ownership or occupation
of the land as they did not know the procedures to follow to legitimise it.
The research revealed that some of the LC1 chairpersons were not aware of the
land laws and the procedures for acquiring land. It was also evident that the few with
knowledge of the land laws believed that such laws were not properly implemented.
In Masindi and Buliisa Districts, most of the respondents showed very low levels of
knowledge of laws/policies related to land. This lack of knowledge even extended
to some local leaders such as Area Land Committee members and police officers
charged with adjudicating land disputes. These indicated that they just had basic
knowledge of the law, so they could not even sensitise their communities especially
on the laws on land use and management. One key informant from Moroto District
observed:
The laws in place are not explained to people and are only explained when there is a
problem. They need to be translated.
In Karamoja region, it was reported that due to the high levels of illiteracy and
underdevelopment, the elites from the region took advantage of the ignorance of
the locals to lure them into fraudulent land deals. It was stated that communications
regarding land transactions, especially by the mining companies, were not reaching
the common man on the ground. Some of the elites were speculators who bought
land cheaply in anticipation of government and investors coming to buy the said land
for industrial purposes. An FGD participant in Singila village, Katikekile Sub County in
Moroto District noted:63
We are not educated and people take advantage of that to dispossess us of our land.
This is the insecurity of the pen.
However, the claim that lack of knowledge on land laws and procedures was a
driving factor for land disputes was contested by representatives of UWA and NFA
the state agencies. Instead, they attributed the land disputes specifically related to
encroachment on the conservation areas to impunity among the public. According to
the UWA Manager Mbale Area, people decided to take the law into their hands to the
extent that even when they knew the boundary, they still continued to encroach on
the forest reserve.
4.6.15. Overlapping Land Tenure Systems

The prevalence of different forms of land tenure systems was a key feature of land
administration in Uganda.64 The predominant land ownership system in Northern
63
A FGD participant in Lia village, Singila parish, Katikekile sub county, Moroto district
64
Woodman Gordon (2011) “Legal pluralism in Africa: the implications of state recognition of customary laws illustrated from the field of land law”

and part of eastern Uganda was customary ownership. The study revealed that this
overlapping system of land ownership is a source of conflict in most of the communities.
In Acholi sub region, for example, it is estimated that up to 93 per cent of the land is
customarily owned.
In Central Region, the matter was further complicated by the immigrants from
Western Uganda, to areas like Mubende District where the land tenure system
was different.65 Closely linked to this was the issue of absentee landlords in Central
Region. The key informants as well as FGD participants alleged that the majority
of the absentee landlords owned pieces of land but did not live within the areas
and therefore did not know the people occupying their land nor the extent of the
boundaries; yet they kept showing up every time they wanted to use the land.66
A respondent in Mudende District observed:
Whenever we paid ground rent we were given different receipts at a time and when we
complained, the landlord through his agents refused to receive the ground rent. It is now
three years ever since we paid ground rent.
In addition, tenants were expected by law to pay busuulu (ground rent) to landlords.
However, many times this was not observed for a number of reasons. The Commission
was informed for instance, that sometimes landlords rejected the busuulu from tenants
only to turn around and sue them for failure to pay. In Nabyewanga village, Nkozi Sub-
County, Mpigi District, for example, it was alleged that the bibanja holders had taken
long without paying ground rent not only because it was rejected by the landlords
but also sometimes they got confused about whom to pay. A case was reported
in Kasebwende village, Kigyaomanyi Parish where a landlord rejected busuulu and
thereafter sued tenants for failure to pay.
4.6.16. The Mineral Rush

The discovery of minerals in most parts of the country was also raised as an issue
leading to land disputes. In Karamoja Region, when the security situation improved,
many mining companies moved in to explore the mineral prospects. At the same time
government focus on the region increased. The respondents expressed concerns
over the processes of licensing companies which they noted were mostly top-bottom,
with limited regard for the voices of the ordinary land owners.
In Amuru and Buliisa Districts, speculation about the discovery of oil was cited
during interviews as a key driver in the land disputes. It was alleged that speculators
expecting to benefit from the reported oil deposits in the two districts were behind the
land grabbing. One resident in Buliisa noted:
Many rich individuals have invaded this area claiming ownership of land adjacent to the
oil sites. While others buy land genuinely, others are fraudulent and use middle men to
65
It was noted that most of these immigrants come from places where the customary land ownership is common yet when they come to Buganda, they
are confronted with a different form of land tenure system. They tend to purchase land under the same aspect of their tenure in places of origin which
turns out to be illegal as they do not match the current tenure in Central Region.
66
It was further alleged in an FGD in Butorogo S/C, Mubende district that this is because some of these absentee landlords inherited the land from their
fore-fathers or purchased the land without obtaining enough.

defraud the poor of their land which has raised a lot of conflicts mostly on customarily
owned land where all members in the community need to benefit from the sales.
In Buliisa, the respondents reported that the discovery of oil wells by Tullow in
Kasemene-1, Kasemene-2 and Kasemene-3 in Kisimo Cell, caused so many people
to flock into the region to benefit from opportunities from oil and gas exploration and
production. The various demands on the land by speculators and members of the
affected communities triggered land disputes especially related to where the Central
Processing Facility (CPF) would pass. In Amuru District, the Commission learnt that
the discovery of oil had triggered interest among speculators to acquire land. It had
also caused tension and suspicion among the community members who feared that
government would take away their land. A resident of Amuru explained:
We see planes flying over our area every other time, but no explanation is ever given.
It’s rumoured that oil has been discovered in Amuru District and therefore assessments
are being made, that is why some of these land conflicts may never end because there
are ‘big shots’ who have personal interest over this same land.
In Central Region, the Commission was informed that such transactions were in most
instances brokered by the local leaders, majority of whom had become land agents
or brokers bribed to hoodwink unsuspecting communities into selling their land, owing
to their low literacy levels.
4.6.17. Other Causes of Land Disputes

Other causes of land disputes identified by respondents were industrialisation and
poverty. Mostly noted in the Central Region where many manufacturing industries had
come up, industrialisation was raised as a factor because most of these factories are
owned by foreign investors who were reportedly always willing to purchase the pieces
of land at a relatively higher price than the locals who were already occupying them
. With regard to poverty, it was revealed that often times, community members are
duped into selling their land to investors for an amount that is much less than their
property’s worth. In the Western and Northern Region, many communities in oil-rich
areas like Bunyoro have fallen victim to fraudulent land acquisitions which have left
some of them homeless.
4.7. Actors in Land Disputes

The circumstances leading to the dispute could determine whether one is a perpetrator
or a victim. During the study, the team ascertained that while in most of the cases,
individuals and community members were victims of land disputes, there were
instances where the landlords became the victims and the community members the
perpetrators. In Kaggaba village, Mpigi District, for example, the team was informed
that the LC I Chairman was inciting tenants against the landlord. In general, the parties
to the disputes ranged from private companies, statutory bodies, private individuals,
security agencies and District Local Governments, as indicated by the responses
illustrated in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5
From the findings above, the main parties to the land disputes were individuals
according to 25 per cent of the responses. The community followed with 15 per cent
and UWA with 13.9 per cent respectively. According to some of the respondents,
these perpetrators connived with the local authorities like the police or clan leaders to
take land away from the people. In the opinion of one of the respondents in Buliisa,
“some of the police officers accelerated the land disputes instead of resolving them”.
The study revealed that CSOs topped the list of institutions managing the resolution
of land disputes. These were followed by UPF, the District Local Government, Local
Councils and the Area Land Committees among others, as shown in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6
The Judiciary at 13.5 per cent topped the responses regarding the actors involved in
the resolution of land disputes, followed by the UPF at 11.8 per cent, LCs at 11.3 per
cent, RDC at 11.1 per cent and Area Land Committees at 10.2 per cent. The actors

involved in resolving land disputes played various roles such as community policing,
mediations and reconciliation, arbitration of land matters, as well as education/
sensitisation of the public about land laws and policies, among other roles.
4.8. Land Cases Registered and Disposed of by Police and the Judiciary
from 2014 to April 2017
During the study the institutions admitted handling land disputes, although they were
not able to provide the relevant comprehensive and disaggregated statistics. This was
an indication that most institutions did not keep records of the complaints handled.
Only UPF and the Judiciary provided statistical information regarding land disputes
as indicated in Table number 5. It is important to note that most of the cases reported
to police were criminal in natue and did not explicitly show any link with land disputes.
However, during interactions with police officers, it was revealed that most of the
criminal cases like arson, criminal trespass and assault were a result of land disputes.
Therefore, the relationship between land disputes and crime was clearly established.
Table 5 below shows the number of cases reported in the magistrate’s courts of Amuru
and Buliisa districts from 2014 to May 2017.
Table 5: Cases before the Magistrates Courts in Amuru, Buliisa 2014-2017
No. of cases No. of cases

Magistrates Cout Male Female
registered disposed
Amuru Magistrates Court
2014 60 7 50 10
Data not
2015 45 38 7
available
Data not
2016 30 24 6
available
Data not
2017 (January –May) 13 11 2
available
Buliisa Magistrates Court
Data not Date not

2014 31 25
available available
Data not Data not
2015 19 9
available available
Source: CID registry, Amuru Magistrate’s Court

Table 6: Cases reported to Amuru Police Station for the year 2014
Total No. Cases

Taken to
Year Nature of case of cases under Disposed
court
reported inquiry
2014 Malicious damage 147 53 80 14
Arson 66 20 35 11
Simple robbery 113 62 42 9
Common assault 839 240 559 40
Threatening violence 269 106 150 13
Aggravated robbery 9 3 4 2
Arson 67 27 38 20
Arson 32 14 08 10
Criminal trespass 56 22 21 13
Source: CID records office, Amuru District
Table 7: Cases reported to Bududa, Katakwi and Kween Police Stations (2014-2017)
Cases Forms
Referred Compl
Year Regis- Disposed Pending of
to court -ainants
tered dispute
M F
Bududa Central Police Station
2014 33 1 26 6 31 2
Data not Criminal trespass,
2015 32 27 5 29 3 malicious damage
available
and removal of
2016 22 5 5 12 17 7
boundary marksda
2017 12 1 2 9 12 0
Total 99 7 60 32 89 12
Katakwi Central Police Station

2014 15 10 3 2 15 1 Criminal trespass,

removing boundary
2015 12 9 3 0 11 1 marks, malicious
2016 20 11 9 0 19 1 damage, forceful
entry, and unlawful
2017 23 12 3 8 19 4 occupation of land
Total 70 42 18 10 64 7
Kween Central Police Station
2014 46 14 25 7 40 6
Criminal trespass,
2015 27 11 13 3 23 4 forceful entry, and
2016 29 10 6 13 24 5 malicious damage
of property
2017 4 1 0 3 No data No data
Total 106 36 44 26 87 15
Kapchorwa Chief Magistrate Court
Recovery of land,
2014 74 7 57 10 57 17 refund back the
land, division of
2015 50 1 35 14 37 13 land, declaration
that the defendant
trespassed on
2016 47 1 19 27 34 13
the land, and
declaration of
ownership (vacant
possession,
2017 29 0 2 27 15 4 general damages
permanent
injunction, cost of
the suit)
Total 200 9 113 78 143 47
Source: Magistrates Court, Kapchorwa, Kween, Katakwi and Bududa
While the Judiciary was known as a key institution in resolving land disputes, the
findings of the study showed that not so many cases actually ended up there. In
Moroto District, for example, only four cases of land disputes were reported to and
disposed by the Chief Magistrates Court since 2014. Similarly, only 15 cases relating
to land were reported to Nakapiripirit Grade One Magistrate Court, between 2014 and
2017. Out of these, four were disposed of and the rest were still pending.

Table 8: Cases of land disputes registered in the Districts of Mpigi, Mubende and Kayunga
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017(Jan--May)
Mubende
Mubende
Mubende
Mubende
Kayunga
Kayunga
Kayunga
Kayunga
District
Mpigi
Mpigi
Mpigi
Mpigi
Cases 124 59 172 108 30 149 121 8 101 20 6 27
Registered
Cases 119 33 114 94 10 53 0 1 11 0 0 2

disposed off
4.9. Challenges in Addressing Land Disputes
4.9.1. Lack of Faith in the Judicial System

The Commission established that there was lack of faith among the community in
the judicial system. This manifested in lack of cooperation from especially witnesses
expected to testify in such cases of land disputes. This loss of faith was also evident
from the witness’ reluctance to testify and failure to honour summons; parties not
turning up for mediation; as well as hostility from the communities.
Relatedly, the very slow process in handling the issues referred to courts made people
lose faith in them. One respondent reportedly stated that “Omusango gw’ettaka
omuzukulu yaaguwooza,” meaning that land cases take so long in court that one would
have produced children and got grandchildren by the time their case is handled. The
periods that land cases take to be resolved in courts of law were so long to the extent
that they transcend generations. Related to the above was the issue of inaccessibility
to the justice institutions due to long distances and lack of resources to pay for legal
services.
Officials of the Judiciary told the Commission during the interviews that while to some
extent people had lost faith in its system, the Judiciary was concerned that most
people wanted quick results when they had disputes, leading to forum shopping,
whereby people tended to report the same cases to multiple institutions.
4.9.2. Poor Facilitation

Poor facilitation of institutions mandated to address land disputes was another
challenge raised during the research. The inadequate number of judicial officers in the
regions where the research was conducted as well as inadequate funding and poor
facilitation had made some institutions non-functional. The Commission was informed
that, for instance judicial officers were not adequately facilitated and therefore could
not visit the locus quo which is key factor in determining land matters. All these
cause delays in dispensing justice to the affected parties. In some districts, it was

noted that the District Land Board had not been operational for the past three years.
The Commission also established that the zonal offices in 2015vestablished by the
MoLHUD were not yet operational.
4.9.3. Lack of Coordination among Institutions Addressing Land Disputes.

The Commission observed that institutions mandated to address land disputes
pursued different interests in some instances. This was especially in situations where
powerful and wealthy individuals were conflicting with peasant communities over land.
The lack of coordination caused duplication with different government institutions
handling the same matter and sometimes issuing conflicting and contradicting orders
and documents.
4.9.4. Politicisation of Land issues

The Commission was informed that most of land disputes were triggered by politicians
who tended to politicise land matters, instead of sensitising their electorates on
the available peaceful means of resolving them. Often times, it was reported that
politicians, while searching for votes, misinformed communities about land rights
which ultimately frustrated the efforts of institutions meant to address land issues.
In addition, some key informants cited incidents of intimidation of local leaders and
some judicial officers who attempted to follow up cases of land disputes on behalf of
their communities. A case in point was the conflict in Apaa in Amuru District, where
Hon. Gilbert Olanya, the Member of Parliament for Kilak South County alleged:
Most of us are subjected to a lot of threats and intimidation in the process of trying
to advocate for the land rights of our people. These threats have ranged in form of
arbitrary arrests and detention, witch hunt which poses a lot of life threats. However, the
struggle for justice for our people still continues” This is also coupled with a lot of time
wastage because I have to make appearance before court as a witness over the said
land related wrangles which take ages to be resolved
4.10. Categories of People Affected by Land Disputes

The findings of the study revealed that the most affected categories of people were
the orphans and other vulnerable children as 31 per cent of the responses indicated;
followed by widows at 30 per cent. This state of affairs was attributed to the high
poverty levels and their marginalisation; lack voice in the communities; ignorance of
land rights; limited social support systems; and discriminative cultural practices that
prohibit women from owning or inheriting property. Due to the patriarchal nature of
communities, land was owned by men and women who depended on the goodwill of
their husbands or their deceased husbands’ families in order to have access to land.

Figure 9: Victims of Land Disputes
4.10.1. Young People with no Social Support System

In an interview with the coordinator of KIDEP, a CSO operating in Napak District,
it was revealed that land disputes had a bearing on young people, because they
are vulnerable and not able to defend themselves from the land grabbers, so most
often they ended up on the streets of Kampala. Similarly, in Rwanda Camp, Kwanyi
Sub County in Kween District where evicted people took refuge, the Commission
established that most children of school-going age were not getting any formal
education due to lack of a school.
4.10.2. Pastoralists
Pastoralists were identified owing to their unique nature of land use, given their way of
life that demands open boundaries where they can easily graze their animals without
any restrictions. This was mainly noted in Karamoja region.
4.10.4. The Elderly

The Commission noted that most elderly people were generally weak, poor and did
not have the means and resources to defend themselves whenever their land was at
threat. In most areas of Northern and North-eastern Uganda, for instance, the elderly
were said to have lacked the energy to move back to settlement sites following the
return to peace in the regions. An elderly lady from Singila Village in Katikekile Sub
County, Moroto District explained:
It is the old women and men who are usually affected because they can’t manage to
move down the mountain and settle from there. They have grown up here and know
only this place as their home.

CHAPTER FIVE:
Human rights implications of
land disputes
5.0. Introduction
In this chapter the implications of land disputes on the enjoyment of fundamental
human rights and freedoms are analysed in light of regional and national human rights
standards. The discussion makes substantial reference to international and regional
human rights conventions and national legislations. The discussion focuses on
particular human rights issues arising from the impact of land disputes on the rights to
property, life, food, housing, cultural identity, liberty and security of person; women and
children’s rights; freedom from torture as well as the right to effective remedy. Special
attention is also paid to issues of forced evictions, poverty and underdevelopment, as
well as the right to self-determination.
5.1. Violation of the Right to Property

One inevitable effect of land disputes is the infringement on the right to property,
manifested at two levels of deprivation of land and the destruction of valuable property
on land.
5.1.1. Deprivation of Land

Access to and ownership of land is a key component of the right to property. Whereas
the National Land Policy recognises the need to manage access to land for investment
purposes in such a manner as not to jeopardise the rights and interests of smallholder
farmers, this research established that there were several cases of denial of access
to land in the districts of Moroto, Napak, Kayunga and Mubende where various
mining companies were operating. A resident of Iriir Sub County in Napak District
expressed fear that the government that disarmed the people was taking away their
land and would soon come for their clothes and life. This sentiment was captured in
the expression by one elder: 67
“So the government took our guns in order to take our land”?
67
A key informant re-echoing one of the common phrases among the Karimojong in reference to the current land grabbing in the area.

Furthermore in the districts where mining activities were on going, it was noted that
the rights of the land owners as provided for under the Mining Act were not being
observed. The Mining Act stipulates the procedure of acquiring the various licenses,
the rights and obligations of a license holder vis-a-vis those of the land owners68. The
Act further provides for restrictions on the rights of licence holders, by providing for:
The rights of land owners to get compensation for disturbance over their land; surface
rights; 69 and a right to royalties70 entitled to a lawful occupier of land71.
The denial of access to land goes against the expressions in the Uganda National
Land Policy, that proposes the promotion of long-term benefit sharing arrangements
“rather than one-off compensation for loss of land rights in respect of investment”72
especially in situations where mineral activities are taking place on a given piece of
land. In addition, it violates provisions of Article 26 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda
and other national and international human rights treaties that Uganda is party to. The
land policy stipulates support to “alternative business/production models between the
locals and investors”73 such as contract farming schemes for smallholder farmers,
out-grower schemes, equity sharing schemes, leaseholds and joint ventures.
5.1.2. Destruction of valuable properties on land.

The Commission learnt of cases where people’s houses had been burnt down or
demolished and their crops destroyed. A case in point was Nalwanza Primary School
in Bududa District which was allegedly burnt down by the sub county leadership due
to a land dispute in June 2017. In Nalutuntu Sub County in Mubende District, 26
houses were burnt down allegedly by army officers. In Angisa Parish, Magoro Sub
County in Katakwi District, houses were burnt down, animals cut and crops in the
gardens destroyed. Similar incidents happened in Karamoja where, in Nakayot Parish
Lorengechora Sub County in Napak District, residents reported that UWA officials had
destroyed a borehole that was sunk by the local government. The properties of the
residents of Loperot village in Namalu Sub County, Nakapiripirit District, who were
displaced by UPS, were destroyed by the prison warders. Inn Ngenge Sub County
in Kween District, the community destroyed a borehole that was sunk by the local
government over land disputes.
68
S 23, 24, 31, 32, 39, 50, 60 which provide for rights and obligation of the different license holders.
69
S.82 of the Mining Act, Holders of mineral rights shall on demand by the land owner of lawful occupier of any land subject to such minerals pat the
owner or lawful occupier fair and reasonable compensation for any disturbance for any damage done on the surface. …. Compensation will depend
on the market value of the land.
70
S.83 Mining Act
71
S.98 Mining Act, Royalty shall be shared by government, local government and owners or lawful occupiers of land subject to mineral rights.
72
Page 29
73
Ibid

A borehole allegedly destroyed by UWA officials in Nakayot Parish, Lorengechora Sub County, Napak
District
The other challenge noted was the process of effecting orders of execution following
a court judgement. It was alleged that the police in most cases meddled in the
process of lawful execution of judgements. It was noted that someone who obtained
a judgement from court involving a matter of a land dispute had to go through various
institutions to realise the judgment which took a long time ultimately implying that the
person could not immediately use their property hence affecting their right to property.
A family house in Muduuma Sub County, Mpigi District that was allegedly destroyed during a land dispute

5.2. Deprivation of the Right to Life

The right to life is guaranteed under various international, regional and national human
rights frameworks. Article 3 of the UDHR74 provides for everyone’s right to life, liberty
and security of person while Article 6 of the ICCPR75 guarantees the right to life. At the
national level, Article 22 of the Constitution of Uganda guarantees every individual’s
right to life76. The Commission established that land disputes had led to violation of
the right to life manifested through direct deaths arising from physical violence, as well
as indirectly by affecting the means to livelihoods inherent in the instrumental nature
of land rights.
Violation of the right to life occurred when land disputes turned violent. As an example,
in Ngenge Sub County in Kween District, the Commission was informed by police that
since January 2017, more than five people had been killed in land-related wrangles.
In Apaa Sub County in Amuru District, two people Felix Opio Tobia and Jacob Okumu
were allegedly killed by UWA game rangers in the last three years as a result of the land
dispute between the UWA and the local community. In Amuru District, a one Joseph
Onek was killed by clan members with whom his clan was rivalling over land. The loss
of lives affected individual members of the community as well as staff of institutions
such as UPF, NFA and UWA. In one instance, in Nalutuntu Sub County in Mubende
District, a police officer was lynched by the community while he was investigating a
case of land dispute, while in Bududa District a policeman who had gone to enforce
a court order was disarmed and shot dead by members of the community. In Napak
Town Council a person was killed in March 2017 over disputes related to land and the
border dispute between Abim, Napak and Amuria Districts claimed more lives in the
last three years.
The situation was compounded by the general feeling within communities that land
conflicts could not be resolved through formal or traditional justice systems and as
such, many across the regions had resorted to witchcraft and poisoning of opponents
to ‘resolve’ them. Land-related disputes were noted to be one of the leading causes
of mob action in most communities.
At another level, violation of the right to life occurs from land disputes that affect
the instrumental nature of land as a means to the realisation of other rights. It has
been recognised elsewhere77 that the right to life includes the right to a livelihood
and thus eviction of people from their land, which in most cases remains their only
source of livelihood is an indirect violation of the right to life. In Uganda, some court
decisions have also recognised the relationship between the right to life and the right
74
http://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf
75
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/GCArticle6/GCArticle6_EN.pdf
76
Article 22, Constitution of The Republic of Uganda also prohibits arbitrary deprivation of the right to life.
77
The Indian case of Olga Tellis and others vs. Bombay Municipal Authority (https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/olga-tellis-ors-v-bombay-municipal-
council-1985-2-supp-scr-51 ). Is one such case, where a group of slum dwellers challenged Bombay municipal authority about their eviction from their
dwellings, which they termed as violation of their right to life?

to a livelihood.78 Denial of access to land indirectly led to loss of lives when people
had no access to grazing grounds or land to cultivate and so could not get food for
home consumption. In this regard, pastoralists were the most affected, when their
grazing grounds were allocated to mining companies.
5.3. The Right to Food

In its General Comment No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food, the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights underlines availability as an element of the right
to adequate food, as it refers to the possibilities either for people to feed themselves
directly from productive land or other natural resources (Para 12). Article 11.1 of the
ICESCR considers the right to food as “the right of everyone to an adequate standard
of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing,
and to the continuous improvement of living conditions” (UN-ICESCR). This is further
elaborated in General Comment 12 that states:
‘The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or in
community with others, have physical and economic access at all times to adequate
food or the means of its procurement’ (General Comment 12, Para 6).
Similarly, the right to food is linked to human dignity and to other related human rights
such as the right to life (Dreze 2004: 1727). Therefore, in terms of the human rights
obligations regarding the right to food, the ICESCR general provision under Article 2
requires that “the State takes steps to achieve progressively the full realisation of the
right to adequate food” (General Comment 2).
Specifically, the State has to respect the right to food, ensuring existing access
to food, to protect by controlling the actions of third parties that may interfere with
people’s access to food and to fulfill the right by providing food where individuals
are not able to access food due to factors beyond their control (Mechlem 2004:639).
The obligation to fulfill the right to food is of an immediate nature, not subject to
progressive realisation (Mechlem 2004:640).
There is therefore an important linkage between the right to food and access to natural
resources like land. A human right to food calls for enhancing access to the means of
producing food such as access to land and other natural resources (Golay and Biglino
2013:1633). In this regard, access to land remains a critical means to the realisation
of the right to food since hunger is seen as an outcome of deprivation over resources
required to produce food (Golay and Biglino 2013: 1634, Narula 2005:722).
In Uganda, majority of the population still depends on land for subsistence and so land
disputes significantly affect people’s realisation of their right to food. The findings of
the study clearly revealed the link between land disputes and violation of the right to
food since they interfered with people’s free access and use of land to grow their own
food. The Commission established that families were left landless because of land
dispossession; and with nowhere to graze animals or to cultivate.
78
In the case of Salvatore Abuki and Richard Abuga V the attorney general, 1997, UGCC5, Constitutional Case Number 2 of 1997.

In Karamoja for instance, the Commission found that most productive land was either
under NFA, UWA or UPS. Coincidentally, this was the most fertile land, not affected by
drought, so all the communities depended on it for survival. In the last five years, it was
reported that some of the grazing grounds, mostly in Moroto District, were allocated
to mining companies. Similarly there were communities that could not cultivate food
particularly those that were affected by their land being taken over by UPDF. The
situation was further compounded by the delay in resolving land matters before the
courts of law.
The Commission also noted that food insecurity occurred when people got evicted
from their land leaving them stranded. In Rwanda Camp, in Kwanyi Sub County,
Kween District, where victims had been living after being evicted from the forest, they
had nowhere else to cultivate and depended mainly on government hand-outs that
they got once in a while. In Apopong and Aperisiru Villages in Angisa Parish, Magoro
Sub County in Katakwi District, similar concerns were noted. Consequently, most of
the affected communities reported experiencing food insecurity.
5.4. Forced Eviction and the Resultant Violation of the Right to Housing
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted in its General Comment
7 that forced evictions are incompatible with the requirements of the ICESCR which
provides in Article 2 (1) of the ICESCR that States are obligated to use all appropriate
means to realise the right to housing. This includes the State’s obligation to refrain
from forced evictions and ensuring that the law is evoked against State agents and
third parties involved in forced evictions.
Ms. Ida Nakiganda, Director Research, Education and Documentation, UHRC taking notes during an
FGD in Apeitolim parish, Lokopo sub county in Napak district

General Comment 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

notes that “forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of
the [ICESCR].” The Committee further observed that all persons should possess a
degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction,
harassment and other threats79.
The cascading impact of the forced evictions on the enjoyment of other rights was
also emphasised in the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples
Rights in the case of The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for
Economic and Cultural Rights – v – Nigeria. The case dealt with the forced eviction of
the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta Region by both State and non-State actors. The
African Commission found that the destruction of individual and communal farmland
by acts and omissions of the State led to the violation of the obligation to respect and
protect the implicit rights to food and adequate housing.
In some of the areas where the research was conducted, it was established that most
people’s homes and households were destroyed following land disputes. In Namalu
Sub County, Nakapiripirit District, for example, a village comprising of about seven
households were evicted from land by the Namalu Uganda Government Prison. In
Moroto District, the proposed expansion of Moroto Municipality caused fear among the
Tepeth in Lia Village, Singila Parish, Katikekile Sub County who expressed concerns
that the development could cause them to be forced off their land with no means to
re-construct their permanent houses or even seek redress in the courts of law.
The housing situation was more severe for people displaced from their land into
camps as was the case in Kwanyi Sub County in Kween District. According to the
LC III chairman of the area, UWA allegedly stopped the locals from even collecting
construction materials from the forest. It was evident to the research team that the
available shelters in Kwanyi Sub County were poor and dilapidated. Houses were built
using timber for the walls and floor and roofed with banana fibre. The poor housing
conditions also affected sanitation as the people living in the camps could not dig pit
latrines since the area was rocky. The residents of Kwanyi reported that ever since the
two ecosan toilets constructed by the district got filled up, most people had resorted
to using polythene bags for disposal of excreta. In Nabwal and Nakayot parishes of
Iriir Sub County, Napak District, the Commission learnt that a water source was ruined
when the UWA allegedly destroyed a borehole in addition to stopping the construction
of a school, claiming that they were in a game reserve.
In Nakapiripirit District, about 300 people from the villages of Komacaren, Lopedot,
Nakuyon, Kokuwam Angolethuroth in Namalau Sub County, were reportedly evicted,
their crops destroyed and their household properties thrown by the road side by
prisons officers. In Kayunga District, a family was forced to relocate to Kawempe
Division in Kampala due to land disputes while in Katakwi District, seven villages of
Angaro, Amaida, Atira, Abobore, Adida, Akakai and Agerigeri in Angisa Parish were
79 General comment 7. Of the Committee on ESCR.

evicted by UWA from a 300-square kilometre piece of land. In Kween 12 villages from
Kapkwata, Nyimei and Kapulekep parishes in Kwanyi Sub County were evicted into
camps with 169 families at Rwanda and 87 people at Kisangani. In Norther region, a
total of 2,734 people belonging to the Madi ethnic group and 1,924 belonging to the
Acholi ethnic group Acholi had also been displaced. 80
Therefore, it can be concluded that the various cases of forced evictions brought out
by the research contravened international norms relating to forced evictions.
5.5. Poverty and Underdevelopment

Poverty and underdevelopment were highlighted by the research participants as
some of the long-term implications of land disputes. This was attributed to the fact
that majority of Ugandans still depended on land as their only source of livelihood.
One respondent in Katakwi explained:
Land is something that is very valuable to us ... If you lose a piece of land you are the
poorest, because all our dependency is on land.
During field data collection, the Commission observed that most residents of Rwanda
and Kisangani camps in Kween District were mostly idle, with no land to cultivate
since the area was rocky and could not sustain crops. In Central Region, it was noted
that most family development projects were reportedly at a standstill especially in
communities that had been forcefully evicted from their land. Respondents in Nalutuntu
for example reported that the community was no longer involved in farming because
they did not have access to their land. In Kasongwire parish in Budinongo Sub County,
Masindi District, it was alleged that electricity connections had been diverted due to
a land dispute between the community and Kinyara Sugar Works, thus affecting both
personal and national development. The disputes have also affected people’s access
to vital social services like schools and health centres as the Commission found out in
Apaa Village, in Amuru District. The community there was not sure about whether they
were expected to access medical services from Amuru District or Adjumani District.
5.6. The Right to Cultural Identity

Land and the right to cultural identity are intrinsically linked. This link was evident during
the research with the right to live on ancestral land affected. This was particularly the
case with the minority groups such as the Tepeth whose existence was under threat
owing to claims by institutions like the NFA as well as in Apaa Sub County in Amuru
District where residents were resisting eviction by UWA and private investors. One
respondent, a widow Mego Magdalena Alum, who lost her son during the land conflict
in Apaa said:81
I can vividly recall that I got married to my husband Alensi Obuu in 1972 and I have
since lived on this land to date. My husband even had documents concerning the land
80
New vision, Tuesday 22, 2017.
81
Excerpts from an interview with Mego Madalena Alum, a resident of Apaa village, Amuru district.

by then but because of the insurgency, everything got distorted. I bore all my children
on this land and now my children also have their own children on this same land. Where
do you expect me to go at this point of time yet there is nowhere else that we call home?
The findings also revealed the absence of burial grounds for people who were evicted
from land as was the case in Kween District, specifically in Rwanda Camp. A resident
of the camp explained:
When someone dies they wait until late in the night and then go bury in the forest.
5.7. Freedom from Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Whereas torture is one of those acts prohibited under international and national human
rights instruments, the research findings revealed that violent land disputes had been
characterised by various acts of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment. Just as the case was with loss of life, victims of torture were from both
sides of the disputes. Torture was reported in the areas where the evictions were
forceful and people were allegedly beaten, dragged about and sometimes chased out
of their houses naked and its effects varied from one individual to another. Apart from
the physical injuries, some people reportedly suffered emotional and psychological
torture as they were under constant threats of eviction.
A Focus Group Discussion participant in Namalu Sub County, Nakapiripirit District showing the scars of
an injury he sustained during forceful eviction by Uganda Prison Service.
5.8. Right to Liberty and Security of Person

In addition to cases of arbitrary arrests for those that refused to leave the land, cases
of insecurity in areas with land disputes increased. This was the case in Nyarkidi,
Adoloany and other places between Abim and Napak District where there were border
disputes. Some respondents predicted violence and bloodshed if the issue was not
handled. Furthermore, community cohesion was affected especially where individuals
were selling off communal land without the consent of the majority.

There were cases of threatening violence and intimidation especially to individuals

involved in land disputes. Some parties allegedly intimidated their opponents to keep
them off disputed land. In Amuru District, in one clan for example, as a result of land
disputes, families and individuals lived in perpetual fear of being evicted and this
affected their children. There was reported increase in the number of school dropouts
especially in communities that are affected.
5.11. Implications on Various Children’s Rights

The Convention on the Rights of the Child as elaborated in Article 27 (1) and (3)
emphasises the right to an adequate standard of living.82 Article 16 (1) and (2) prohibits
unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy or any form of attack on children83. All
these provisions of CRC call for protection of children.
Children are often dependent on their caregivers in their access to basic needs, such
as health services, education, adequate food, safe water and sanitation. Thus they are
vulnerable to the effects of loss of livelihood of their caregivers in the event of insecure
tenure or loss of access to land. Furthermore, children born out of wedlock, especially
girls are often discriminated against in inheriting and having access to family land.84
The research therefore demonstrated the link between land disputes and the violation
of various children’s rights.
The children’s out-migration in Karamoja was largely attributed to increasing cases
of land disputes. This was noted especially in Napak District where majority of the
children on the streets came from. It was reported that most children moved of out
of the district to other urban areas like Kampala since much of the fertile land in the
area had been gazetted as a game reserve and people did not have alternative land
to cultivate.
Land disputes were also noted to have led to an increase in the school dropout rate of
especially among those evicted by UWA, thus affecting the right to education. The LC
III chairman Kwanyi Sub County in Kween District reported that there was no school
around the camp while other schools, health centres and markets were all demolished
from Kapkwata forest camp where they had settled in the 1980s. At the time of the
research, the Commission observed that there were many children loitering in the
camps during school time. As a result of the dispute between Adjumani and Amuru
Districts, Zoka Primary School in Adjumani and two community schools in Amuru were
closed85. Most children found it hard to concentrate in school since their parents were
ever on the run as a result of land conflicts, thus interfering with the right to education.
82
Article 27 (1) States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social
development.
83
Article 16 Convention on the Rights of the Child Provides that, No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
84
Ibid, Para. 41
85
Red Pepper of Sunday 2nd July 2017 reported that 3 schools remained closed as a result of the Apaa land Crisis i.e. Zoka primary school in Adjumani
and two community schools in Amuru since the displaced persons had occupied all the classes hence automatically dismissing the children from
school.

An old woman outside her makeshift house with her grandchildren in Rwanda camp. Most children in this
camp were not in school as there was none nearbyl
5.12. Discrimination against Women

Article 14(2) of the CEDAW requires States Parties to take all appropriate measures
to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on a
basis of equality of men and women that they are treated equally in land and agrarian
reform as well as in land resettlement schemes. This means that the State obligation
to ensure non-discrimination against women extends to land issues.
Land disputes have perpetuated discrimination against women. Often times the
effects of land disputes on women are not considered due to the patriarchal nature of
most societies that do not allow the voices of women to permeate through in matters
concerning governance including land governance. For numerous women worldwide,
discrimination in marriage, inheritance, legal capacity or access to financial and other
resources is the main obstacle to access, use and control of land. Poor rural women,
for instance, are among the most marginalised. Their lack of secure tenure owing to
discrimination based on gender has an impact on their own survival as well as the
well-being of their families and children.86
86
Land and Human Rights, Standards and Applications, UNOHCHR, 2015, Page

A displaced single mother with her children next to their hut whose roof was leaking, in Rwanda Camp
in Kwanyi Sub County, Kween District
5.13. Right to Self-determination

Article 1 of the ICCPR and the ICESCR provides that all peoples have the right of
self-determination. Under the Article, self-determination entails people being able to
dispose freely of their natural wealth and resources and not being deprived of their
means of subsistence. This includes land and all means of subsistence derived from
land.87
The study revealed that land disputes involved land owners being dispossessed of
their land against their will or free consent. It further revealed that land owners had
no control of the transactions on their land and did not ultimately benefit from them.
This was most especially true where decisions concerning people’s land were made
without their effective and meaningful participation.
5.14. Right to an Effective Remedy

The right to an effective remedy is espoused in Article 2 of the ICCPR which in essence
provides that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by a competent tribunal
for acts violating human rights recognised by international and national laws. This
includes acts involving violation of land rights.
The delays in resolving cases of land disputes both at investigations level by police
and the lengthy adjudication processes in the courts of law affect the right to effective
remedy. Respondents informed the Commission that the delay in resolution of land
matters has led to their loss of confidence in the justice system. The lack of access to
justice by community members especially vulnerable persons further exacerbated the
challenges faced by victims of land disputes in achieving effective remedies.
+
Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the UN General Assembly, made during the substantive session on 23 June – 18 July 2014,
New York. Para. 22

CHAPTER SIX:
Policy recommendations
6.0. Introduction
The chapter provides policy recommendations to the responsible government
ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs). While some of the recommendations
call for immediate interventions, others require policy and legal reforms that may take
considerable time to accomplish. The targeted MDAs are the MoLHUD, Ministry of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Ministry of Local Governments, statutory authorities
like NFA and UWA.
The recommendations are derived from the State’s obligation to respect, protect
and fulfil human rights under the various international human rights instruments that
Uganda has ratified. In implementing the various recommendations, the MDAs and
other stakeholders to whom the recommendations are made should apply a human
rights based approach (HRBA) to land issues.
The HRBA provides a basis to analyse power relations, discriminatory practices,
inequalities, accountability mechanisms and participation in any proposed interventions
aimed at mitigating the human rights implications of land disputes. The HRBA to land
issues identifies rights holders and enables them to claim their rights. It also enjoins
duty bearers to comply with their obligations and responsibilities. Finally, it takes
into account the needs of the most vulnerable and an assessment of the impact of
proposed interventions on those who are most vulnerable in society and are victims
of land disputes.
In view of the findings of the research and the human rights implications of land disputes,
the following recommendations are made to the various MDAs and institutions:
6.1. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development should:

• As a matter of urgency, redraw or reopen district boundaries in areas with
border disputes. This requires comprehensive consultations with all the
affected communities to ensure that the final decision is acceptable to all.
• Ensure that standard maps are used in addressing land disputes and that they
are easily accessible to people at all levels.
• Ensure that people in communities where land is communally owned acquire
certificates of customary ownership either individually or through the communal
land associations.
• Standardise the compensation rates for all land within the same area. This

would reduce cases of variation in compensation rates for land with the same
value and within a particular area. The compensation rates should be fair and
commensurate with the value of the land taken.
• Ensure that payment of compensation is made prior to the taking away of
land.
• Conduct systemic land surveys and titling for customary land and offer free
registration
• Strengthen institutions such as Area Land Committees, the District Land
Boards and the LC Courts mandated to handle land administration to effectively
address land matters.
• Expedite and scale out the computerisation of land titles.
• Mitigate the impact of population increase and migration on land by coming
out with systematic plans and action on urbanisation.
• Establish a Land Fund to enable the poor acquire land.
• Stay the current proposal to amend Article 26 (2) (b) until the Judicial
Commission of Inquiry into land matters finales its report.
6.2. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development should:
• Ensure that adequate consultations with communities are done before
exploration and mining licenses are given to the investors.
• Verify the bona fide land owners prior and ensure that they are compensated
prior to issuing prospecting, exploration and mining licenses.
6.3. The Judiciary should:
• Implement the strategies in place for backlog reduction in order to reduce the
long periods the cases of land disputes take in the courts of law.
• Strengthen alternative dispute resolution institutions and mechanisms.
• Expedite the passing and implementation of the National Legal Aid Policy to
enhance access to justice for victims of land disputes.
6.4. The Uganda Police Force should:
• Ensure neutrality while handling land matters. This should be limited to
provision of security during lawful eviction and apprehending suspected
criminals involved in land-related crimes.
• Intensify community policing so that a vast number of people can be reached.
6.6. The Civil Society Organisations should:
• Continue to complement the work of government institutions in advocacy,
sensitisation and legal aid services to address land disputes.
• Advocate for the review of all land-related laws to ensure that they effectively
protect people’s fundamental right to property as provided for under Article 26
of the Constitution of the Uganda.

6.7. The Uganda Law Reform Commission should:

• Recognise customary land ownership in its own right without requiring
registration so that people can be able to defend themselves in court without
being asked to produce documentary proof.
• Ensure that the Land Acquisition Act is amended to meet the constitutional
requirements for compensation under Article 26.
• Together with the Judiciary, build the capacity of the members of LC Courts.
6.8. The District Land Boards should:
• Streamline their operations to be accountable to the public when handling
land matters.
6.10. The Uganda Wildlife Authority and National Forestry Authority should:
• Degazette some of the conservation areas so that people can be able to grow
crops there for their livelihood.
• Enter into collaborative forest management agreements with local communities.
• Enhance coordination between them and line ministries, NEMA, the Ministry
of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Ministry of Energy and
Mineral development in giving mining license for forest reserves.
• Strengthen mechanisms to fight corruption within.
6.11. The Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs should:
• Offer legal aid for the poor people in matters regarding land.
• Monitor the activities of the CSOs operating on land matters to ensure that
they are impartial when addressing land issues.
6.12. Uganda Land Commission should:
• Ensure that all government institutions have their lands surveyed to avoid
encroachment by private individuals and companies.
6.13. The Office of the Prime Minister should:
• Resettle communities that have been evicted.
6.14. Politicians should:
• Ensure that they avoid politicising land issues
6.15. The Media should:
• Exercise professionalism and responsible journalism.
6.16. Cultural Institutions should:
• Mitigate disputes within their communities through strengthened and
recognised roles of clan leadership structures.

6.17. Uganda Police Force should:

• Exercise professionalism in executing court orders relating to evictions.
• Together with other security agencies avoid taking sides on land matters.
©Uganda Human Rights Commission, 2017

All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without acknowledgment of the
SXEOLVKHU¬
Cover Photos:
Main:Part of the Pian Upe game reserve in Nakayot parish, Napak district where there
exist a dispute between the Local Community and UWA.
Top: A mark stone showing the boundary of the Bokora corridor game reserve in
Napak Apeitolim parish, Napak district
Bottom: A mining site in Kosiroi parish, Tapach Sub County in Moroto district. This area
is under dispute between the local Tepeth community and Tororo Cement Company

Uganda Human Rights Commission offices
Uganda Human Rights Commission Head Office

Plot 22B Lumumba Avenue (Twed Plaza Building)
P.O Box 4929, Kampala
Tell: 041348007/8
Fax: 041255261
Email. Uhrc@uhrc.ug
Website: www.uhrc.ug
Regional Office
Arua Regional Office Jinja Regional Office

Plot 70A weather Park Lane Plot 21 Bell Avenue
P.O Box 406, Arua P.O Box 66, Jinja
Tel: 0476420214 Tel: 0434123760
Email: uhrcarua@uhrc.ug Email: uhrcjunja@uhrc.ug
Central Regional Office Masaka Regional Office

Plot 55, Katalima Road, Naguru Plot 14 Edward Avenue
Opposite Uganda Police head quarters P.O Box 701, Masaka
P.O Box 4929, Kampala Tel: 0318514812
Tel: 0414232190/04144271847 Email: uhrcmasaka@uhrc.ug
Email: uhrckampala@uhrc.ug
Mbarara Regional Office
Fort Portal Regional Office Plot 6 McAllister Road, Mbarara
Plot 3/5 Mugurusi Road P.O box 105, Mbarara
P. O Box 960 Fort Portal Tel: 048521780/1
Tel: 0483423171 Email: uhrcmbarara@uhrc.ug
Fax: 04822571
Email: uhrcfortportal@uhrc.ug Moroto Regional Office
Plot 2/12 Independence, Avenue
Gulu Regional Office JLOS House
Plot 25 Aswa Road P.O Box 105, Moroto
P.O Box 728 Gulu Tel: 0454470130
Tel: 047143171 Email: uhrcmoroto@uhrc.ug
Fax: 047832458
Email: uhrcgulu@uhrc.ug Soroti Regional Office
Plot 70 Gweri Road
Hoima Regional Office P.O Box 462 Soroti
Plot 154 Bunyoro-Kitara road Tel:/fax 0454461793
P.O Box 339 Hoima Email: uhrcsoroti@uhrc.ug
Tel: 04654400287
Email: uhrchoima@uhrc.ug

Report On Land Disputes and Human Rights PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On Land Disputes and Human Rights PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017

©Uganda Human Rights Commission, 2017

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval

Uganda Human Rights Commission Head Office

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

4.3. Forms of Land Disputes 39

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Med. S.K Kaggwa

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Patrick Mabiiho Nyakaana

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

UPDF Uganda Peoples Defence Forces

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

• To question any person in respect of any subject matter under investigation

Limitations on the UHRC mandate

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Human rights implications

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

3. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development should:

4. The Judiciary should:

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

5. Civil Society Organisations should continue to compliment the work of

7. Uganda Police should:

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

According to findings of a 2008 household survey by Rugadya...et al in 20 districts4

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

1.1. Statement of the Problem

1.2. Objectives of the Study

1.2.1. Specific Objectives

1.3. Research Questions

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

1.5. Historical Background to Land Disputes

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

1.6. Legal and Institutional Framework Regarding Land Rights

1.6.1. International Framework

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

1.6.2. National Legal Framework.

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

1.6.3. Policy and Institutional Framework

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

2.1. Understanding Land Conflicts

26 Miller and Sarat 1981:528

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

factors28. Meanwhile the legal anthropological explanation considers land disputes

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

2.2. Land Disputes and the Global Land Rush

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

2.3. Land Rights: Theory and Practice

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

Land Disputes and Human Rights in Selected

3.1. Study Design

3.2. Scope of the Research

3.3. Baseline Survey